Talk:National Assembly (Artsakh)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nagorno-Karabakh Coat of Arms.png

Image:Nagorno-Karabakh Coat of Arms.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC) <math>Insert non-formatted text here</math>

In exile?

The source quoted with regard to the National Assembly allegedly existing in exile talks about "factions of the National Assembly" making a collective statement; there is no indication of there being a functional body fulfilling the role of a government. The 28 September document mentions the dissolution of "all state institutions and organisations under their departmental authority" before 1 January, which includes the National Assembly. If there is indeed a government-in-exile, it is a whole different initiative. Then it becomes an advocacy group rather than a real legislative body (which by definition requires representation, deliberation, legislation, and the ability to authorise expenditure, form governments and provide oversight, and the NKR National Assembly does not currently fit this definition), which in turn warrants a separate article, provided there is enough evidence for its existence (beyond occasional statements made to the media; see, for example, East Turkistan Government in Exile). So far there is none. It even looks like the Deputy Chief of Staff of the Prime Minister of Armenia denounced these claims by stating that "there is not and cannot be another government or another state in the Republic of Armenia". Parishan (talk) 14:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The assembly and its parliamentarians continue to carry out limited functions, in absentia, based in Yerevan. See [1], [2], [3], while this states "Since Azerbaijan's attack last year on Artsakh, which forced the entire Armenian population there to flee to Armenia, the Artsakh National Assembly has been working in exile in Armenia." And this [4] which states "Exiled leaders of Nagorno-Karabakh have pushed back against a senior Armenian official's claims that their government bodies have ceased to exist since Azerbaijan regained full control of the region last September." There is a plethora of WP:RS confirming the functionality of the assembly as a government-in-exile. Archives908 (talk) 23:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, maybe you aren't aware, but the 28 September document has been officially nullified. See [5] and [6]. Archives908 (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Archives908 First of all, please note that this is unacceptable: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. I will have to ask you to revert yourself at this point; otherwise you will be reported for edit-warring. I am pinging you to avoid any potential miscommunication.

Carrying out "limited functions" does not mean forming a government-in-exile, especially when the supposed host country considers this activity illegal. Your arguments are unsatisfactory. OC Media, the only neutral source you have quoted, mentions "attempts to form a government-in-exile" but not its actual functionality, which is very much in line with other neutral sources:

• Eurasianet, 03.04.2024: "At a late March cabinet session, Pashinyan bluntly announced that Karabakhi leaders would not be permitted to establish a government in exile. A government statement said that “in Armenia, apart from the Government of the Republic of Armenia, no other government can exist.”"
• Centre for East European and International Studies, 04.09.2024: "The former de facto elites of Nagorno-Karabakh have attempted to create a government-in-exile. They have become a thorn in the side of the Pashinyan government and their ideas have been forcefully repudiated. The speaker of the Armenian Parliament, Alen Simonyan, stated that there can be no Karabakh state within Armenia and that Armenia will not provide money to maintain the political institutions of Karabakh."

All these sources are indicative of the fact that plans to form a government-in-exile have not come to fruition and are limited to mere claims by the interested party. I do not know what "plethora of sources" you are referring to but ironically, 90% of search results about a supposed NKR government-in-exile are news reports about the Armenian leadership slamming the idea of there existing such a government. We are talking about a legislative body, and as of now there are no serious grounds to suppose that this body carries out any legislative functions, or any functions for that matter, outside of occasional instances of local media outreach. In any case, wording it in this article as "The National Assembly of the Republic of Artsakh is the legislative branch of the government of the Republic of Artsakh" is misleading and anachronistic and does not reflect the immense changes that affected the region a year ago. That would be like saying: "The National Council of Iran the legislative branch of the government of the Imperial State of Iran". Parishan (talk) 01:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Wrong again. The National Assembly, and its parliamentarians, have been actively operating in Armenia. From releasing official announcements and composing documents, assisting displaced persons, organizing rallies, press briefings and protests, and meeting with the leaders of the 2024 Armenian protests including several opposition party leaders, etc.. It's significantly more then just "local media outreach" as you erroneously claim.

The views of the Prime Minister and government of Armenia, do not change the fact that this body 1) still exists and 2) is functionally active. The 28 September document has been officially revoked and nullified by this very body when they proclaimed to remain active as a government-in-exile. It was signed into decree by president Samvel Shahramanyan. In many countries, dozens of governments-in-exile that are universally accepted under international law exist, whether they are supported by a centralized government or not.

Sure, this article needs more information on recent developments and also more information on how exactly this displaced legislative body operates, their organizational structure, and so on. Alternatively, a whole new article could be created centered around this government-in-exile in Yerevan, in order to differentiate the legislative body which had existed in Stepanakert. However, the topic of this discussion, based on your first comment implies that this body has dissolved and (concerningly) you relied on outdated information. Your WP:ES also suggested that this body is defunct- which is categorically untrue. Archives908 (talk) 02:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I tend to give priority to third-party sources over Armenian news outlets or diaspora periodicals. Furthermore, even if your sources were to be taken into account, the fact that some individuals who used to be affiliated with the National Assembly participate in rallies and show signs of political involvement does not suggest there is a parliament-in-exile. There are no grounds to believe there is a cohesive unit which functions as a legislative body and performs at least part of its regular duties. Even the website listed in the article is not functioning.

The views of the Prime Minister and government of Armenia, do not change the fact that... This goes both ways. The fact that some politically active individuals claim to run a legislative body does not mean they actually do run it. This is why we need third-party sources which not only mention that politicians from Nagorno-Karabakh are currently involved in advocacy and public outreach in Armenia but that there is a formally established political organisation which is headquartered in a given location and devotes conscious and coordinated efforts to represent its erstwhile electorate. I maintain my previous statement that the assembly is defunct and that whatever initiative that is currently in the making to replace it is a different venture.

A report from an independent German research institute from September 2024 is not outdated information and is in fact more reliable than news reports about NKR MPs participating in protests. The Asbarez article you are quoting is typically WP:NEWS because Vladimir Grigoryan, i.e. the same person who claimed that the NKR parliament had voted itself back into existence, retracted his statement just one day later, saying that he was merely expressing a personal opinion and was no longer in a position to make official statements on behalf of the NKR government. I had actually included this information in the article in my last edit; you would have perhaps noticed it if you had not chosen to go on a reverting rampage.

What is clear to me is that talks about there being a NKR government-in-exile are currently limited to claims and rumours and are not warranted to be included in this article until we decide on how to formulate them. In the meantime, since you elected to ignore my good-faith invitation to revert yourself until we reach consensus on this obviously controversial matter, you leave me no choice but to report you. You will receive the notice on your talkpage shortly. Parishan (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Archives908, I am still awaiting your response as well as your good faith revert of your edits on which there is no consensus. Parishan (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

My concern is that your preferred version of the article, without much reference to the government-in-exile, may be misleading to readers. The activities of the National Assembly of Artsakh in absentia does not render the body completely defunct as you claim.

Here are some options towards reaching a WP:CON:

1) We can collaboratively draftify a new article about the Artsakh government-in-exile currently based in Yerevan and then transform this article into the previous National Assembly which existed in Stepanakert until the official dissolution date of Artsakh (1 January 2024). If you agree, I will gladly revert my edit.

2) We can update this article to differentiate the previous National Assembly in Stepanakert with the current government-in-exile. This could entail a subsection of the article being dedicated to information regarding the government-in-exile. The lead can be clarified to reflect that the physical National Assembly in Stepanakert no longer exists, while the the National Assembly has semi re-established itself in Yerevan and continues to carry out limited functions. If you agree, I will revert my edit and we can work on updating the article.

I have no preference for either of these options and I am happy to help either create a new article or revise/expand the current. However, I do wonder which option would make more sense so as not to confuse readers?

3 and 4) Other options would be to maintain the status quo until more information regarding the status of the National Assembly in Yerevan becomes clear (and we can place an update tag on the header) or if you oppose to all of these proposals, to launch an WP:RFC (which I am happy to initiate below).

I have provided four WP:GF options to resolve this and reach a consensus. If you agree to option 1 or 2, please advise how you wish to proceed (ie. draft text here for mutual review or on one of our sandboxes)? Also, if you have any recommendations beyond what I've suggested, I'm all ears. Let me know your thoughts and please make your position clear. Note I am WP:BUSY but will respond in due course. Archives908 (talk) 00:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and your suggestions. However, the main issue remains unresolved: your consensus proposals assume the existence of a legitimate government-in-exile as a confirmed fact, while there is no evidence to substantiate the existence of a Nagorno-Karabakh National Assembly in exile, based merely on news reports about occasional protests and press conferences. As I mentioned previously, the fact that some individuals formerly affiliated with the assembly make public statements and attend rallies does not provide sufficient grounds to claim the existence of a government-in-exile even in this very article, much less to support creating a separate article on the subject. If you recall, the idea of addressing a government-in-exile in a separate article was a suggestion of mine made in the very first message; however, I did stress that this would require serious evidence. Not every public engagement abroad means running a government.

I suggest drawing inspiration from the article Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kyiv Patriarchate, which describes a church body officially dissolved by the Ukrainian government in 2018. The head of the church initially accepted the dissolution by signing the official act but later retracted his acceptance. Although the Ukrainian government upheld the original decision, the patriarch continues to assert that the church exists. Nevertheless, the article refers to this body in the past tense, indicating its disestablishment, and a separate paragraph in the body specifies that the former patriarch disagrees with the decision and continues to perform certain duties. I recommend a similar approach for the National Assembly (Artsakh) article, i.e. stating that it "was the legislative body of..." while highlighting in a separate paragraph that some members of the seventh assembly based in Armenia continue to advocate for the NKR's independence (and citing your sources), without resorting to WP:OR about a government-in-exile. Please let me know if this is an acceptable solution.

I understand that your time is limited, as it is for many of us, and I do respect that. However, since you seem to contribute actively to other articles in the meantime and were clearly available to make quite insistant edits to this one (in contrast to the views of at least three other contributors), I would like to point out that I would highly appreciate your good-faith cooperation and involvement in this discussion. Parishan (talk) 02:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor with some knowledge of the subject matter and having read the above discussion, in case it helps, I think Parishan is correct. It is not a government in exile in the traditional sense as things stand currently. That said, I think it would be fine to have a section in the article titled something along the lines of "Post-dissolution developments" or something similar. It is reasonable to think readers would go to this article for information on the post-2023 activities of former Artsakhi politicians. Just make sure to clearly differentiate/separate that newer content from information about the government prior to its dissolution. Hope this helps, Dan the Animator 03:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus on the matter, yet the requestor above has decided to push his/her interpretation. There is still a national assembly in exile, regardless whether the Armenian government likes it or not. To which extent it actually is active is up for debate and not for us to determine. The N-K leadership has in 2023 annuled the initial decision, which is bluntly ignored by the last edit. Going to revert. Labrang (talk) 05:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

And to follow up on that, the article should reflect the grey situation in which the assembly is. Putting a date it was abolished on 28 Sept 2023, while the assembly has been releasing statements in its name throughout 2024 is misleading readers. It is in limited activity in exile, obviously, regardless whether the central Armenian authorities rather sees it abolished - did they actively ban it, close it? No, then all statements of Pashinyan are just that, statements and positions of the Armenian government without any legal consequences for the assembly, so far. These nuances should be reflected. Just four days ago a statement was released by the NA, illustrating it is not abolished and still releases official statements on its behalf. Labrang (talk) 11:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

First, I would like to point out that you reverted to a non-consensus version, which was initially introduced by the previous editor despite multiple reverts. A recent arbitration case regarding this article characterised their behaviour as POV-pushing. It might be a good-faith gesture on your part to revert yourself to avoid appearing to support non-constructive editing, at least until we reach consensus. Secondly, I believe there was consensus: two users expressed that there was insufficient evidence to classify the body as a government-in-exile, while one participant voluntarily withdrew from the discussion, and no additional input was provided for over a month.

Regarding the annulment claim, the individual who made this assertion had already left office by then and explicitly stated that he was not representing the NKR leadership's position. This remains the most recent update on this annulment situation and, incidentally, was reflected in the version of the article prior to your revert.

My main concern lies with the term "government-in-exile", which has a specific definition and cannot be applied loosely based on some perceived similarities. I have yet to come across a reliable source that explicitly applies this term to the NKR case. A major problem is that the NKR, in its legal texts, described itself as a presidential, not a parliamentary, republic. Therefore, a parliament alone cannot claim to represent the government (in exile or otherwise), it can only represent itself, in which case there must be clarification regarding what form the assembly has taken since September 2023, as it is clearly not functioning in the same capacity as before. So far, there is no evidence that the assembly is currently operating as a cohesive legislative body. Based on available information, former members occasionally issue statements and participate in events as individual activists. This nuance was duly reflected in the version of the article prior to your revert. I also believe it is important not to disregard the perspectives of Armenian officials, particularly since the claim suggests that the National Assembly, if it functions, does so from Armenia. Parishan (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

"So far, there is no evidence that the assembly is currently operating as a cohesive legislative body. Based on available information, former members occasionally issue statements and participate in events as individual activists."

This statement is entirely incorrect. The Artsakh National Assembly has convened sessions in Yerevan in accordance with its mandate (see [15]). The Assembly also continues its overseas diplomatic activities via its "Parliamentary Friendship Groups" in France, Cyprus, Greece, Belgium, etc. (see [16]).

The Assembly remains a functioning entity, actively representing its displaced constituents, in exile. This is what I've been trying to tell you since October...Archives908 (talk) 05:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The Artsakh National Assembly has convened sessions in Yerevan in accordance with its mandate That source is from before 31 December 2023, so it does not back up your claim.

also continues its overseas diplomatic activities via its "Parliamentary Friendship Groups" Apparently, only according to Baghunts. When one actually takes the time to verify that claim, it becomes clear that no such groups exist in the parliaments of France, Belgium, Cyprus, or Greece. The source is therefore unreliable. Also, as I mentioned earlier, since the NKR portrayed itself as a presidential republic, the fact that some parliament members engage in activism does not mean there is a "government-in-exile". If it really registered as an official body, then, for instance, what is its legal address? Parishan (talk) 02:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

No matter how you look at it, the fact is the ('de facto' or not) Assembly is active. To which extent the assembly has any (legal) meaning can be up for debate. However, the assembly has not abolished itself, nor is it yet actively banned with legal action by the Armenian authorities despite threats. We do not make our own interpretations of events, we describe. Labrang (talk) 08:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Using a statement from an unknown news agency to argue that the assembly has not abolished itself is, by definition, an interpretation. Besides, I did not see the term "government-in-exile" mentioned in it. On the other hand, we have numerous reports from reliable sources confirming that all government bodies of the former NKR were abolished by 31 December 2023. As I mentioned earlier, I do not object to including in the article that members of the National Assembly continue to participate in public activities and rallies in Armenia (which is how it was phrased in my version). However, that is not the same as claiming that the National Assembly continues to function in its former capacity in exile. Parishan (talk) 11:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

It seems you ignore the statement of Shahramanyan who said that the decree on the dissolution is not valid, before 31 december 2023. That this has escaped the attention of many mainstream media does not mean that this did not happen. Regardless the actual meaning of it on the ground. Yes, these people do not exert any real political power nor clout. The National Assembly still claims its existence, which should be reflected in the article here, regardless its actual political meaning and power. Labrang (talk) 12:08, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I am not ignoring anything, I actually addressed that in my very first reply to you in this discussion and earlier in my replies to Archives908. The statement about the annulment of the dissolution was made not by Shahramanyan personally but by a former member of his office named Vladimir Grigoryan, who retracted his statement just one day later, saying that he was merely expressing a personal opinion and was no longer in a position to make official statements on behalf of the NKR government. I had actually included this information in the article in my last edit. Unfortunately, when edits are blindly reverted, some important details go unnoticed. Parishan (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

This becomes a bit of a pingpong. This source asked Shahramanyan last year whether a state and government in exile exists: "Yes, the building where I am hosting you in Yerevan houses the office of the President of Artsakh and the offices of the judicial and legislative bodies. Parliamentarians can gather here to vote". That's quite unambiguous, even though it is obvious without dispute that the state of NK / Artsakh has effectively ceased to exist by the fact it does not exert any control over territory it claimed. However, the National Assembly - the page we discuss - maintains it operates as the NA - again, regardless its actual control or legal value. Labrang (talk) 13:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

That claim was promptly refuted by the head of government of the country where Shahramanyan was hosting the interviewer, i.e. the Prime Minister of Armenia. Note that the latter's reaction was not about the legal status of the former NKR government but made it clear that "in the Republic of Armenia, there is no other government apart from the government of the Republic of Armenia." I had included this in my edit as well, but it was removed for no apparent reason. In response to the possible argument that the Prime Minister of Armenia does not have the authority to determine whether a government-in-exile should exist, my answer is: he certainly does. This is not a member of parliament expressing a personal opinion, this is the highest authority in the country delivering a public statement.

Once again, I propose a consensus version mentioning simply that some members of the National Assembly continue to claim to represent the Armenians of Karabakh and to engage in public activities in Armenia (without qualifying it as a "government-in-exile", which borders WP:OR). If there are arguments as to why this is wording not acceptable, I would like to hear them. Parishan (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

The wording is not acceptable because it does not reflect reality. Despite pushback from the Prime Minister of Armenia, the National Assembly of Artsakh remains functioning outside of the former Republic of Artsakh. They continue their operations in the country. They see themselves as the legitimate government of Artsakh and call for the return of displaced persons to Nagorno-Karabakh. This is the textbook definition of what constitutes a "government-in-exile". Archives908 (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

@Parishan and Archives908: given this disagreement has gone on since October, and given 3rd opinions and 4th opinions haven't really changed this, I thought I would propose: would you both be open to having a large, community-wide WP:RfC to decide this? I think its a good idea... Dan the Animator 17:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Also @Labrang: and I think that's everyone in this thread? Dan the Animator 17:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with @Archives908. Also the expelled government of the Democratic Republic of Georgia (1921) was widely considered and called "in exile" in France. They did not need to have an explicit recognition of the French authorities, hosting them. Same with Akhmed Zakayev and his circle, claiming to be the legitimate government of Ichkeria (Chechnya). Government in exiles typically have a symbolic function, having no real governance leverage, nor any recognition barring a few exceptions (most vivid examples are the European governments in exile in London during WW2). In the Armenian case, the Armenian government has expressed their discontent, yet, they have not taken any steps. Their expressions of discontent should also be considered in the context of regional (geo)politics, not giving Azerbaijan or Turkey room to think Armenia tries to make any claims of NK by accepting the NK government. It is obvious these aspects are not widely documented if at all, as this is sensitive conflict material. Which compromises of course the way we can document things. However, it is obvious the Assembly is active, they are still free to operate and as Archives908 says, they still claim to be the legitimate governing body for the Republic Artakh, regardless its actual meaning on the ground. Various sources are available for that. That makes it fairly easy to write a well-balanced approach here, such as that the NA as elected through the last elections, still convenes, makes public statements, still claims to be the legislative body of the R-Artsakh, still expects to return, but has not territory in control nor any de facto powers. To be completed with the Armenian government position on the desirability of the NA on their territory - yet fails to dismantle the NA (which is true as well, so far it's all just words, unless I missed some last minute news). Typically these things take years to fizzle out, if the exiled situation lasts long enough and there are no measures taken to crack down. The Georgian government in exile for example is considered finished in 1954 after Jordania (1953) and then Gegechkori (1954) died.

Having said all that as a closing note from my side, an RFC is fine for me, @Dantheanimator. I am confident a well-balanced approach along the lines I argue will be the result. Labrang (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Labrang, I agree with all your points as well. Dantheanimator, as seen above, I proposed an RFC on 10 November 2024, which was ignored by Parishan. Nonetheless, I still support an RFC on this matter if that's the course we collectively decide to pursue. Cheers, Archives908 (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh apologies I missed that! Well it sounds like you and Labrang both are alright with an RfC so @Parishan: let me know if you're okay with it too and I'll try to help out with that. Dan the Animator 19:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Why not raise article rating?

Is there a reason the article is still stub class when it clearly is big enough to deserve start class?

Roc1233 (Talk | Edits) 02:06, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I guess there wasn't as its been raised. Roc1233 (Talk | Edits) 22:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)