Talk:Republic of Artsakh/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Jan 1 dissolution date annulled?

Feel like this is better sorted out in its own section than as a side-discussion of the above section.

On December 22nd, two outlets reported that on October 19, the president of Artsakh annulled the order to dissolve remaining Artsakhi government institutions on January 1st. It is not known why it seemingly took two months for this to become publicly available knowledge.

(source 1) (source 2) (source 3).

From Hetq:

"Shahramanyan and the republic’s legislators, at the time, argued the decree was necessary to stop the hostilities and save lives.

Shahramanyan’s adviser, Vladimir Grigoryan, told RFE/RL’s Armenian language service that the Artsakh leader nullified the decree on October 19.

Grigoryan didn’t say why the nullification wasn’t publicized earlier."

Of course, this doesn't change the de facto situation. I have no idea if Artsakh still has de facto control over an inch of Karabakh anymore. But we can probably remove the claim that this order became effective on January 1st, 2024 as it seems to have been reversed.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The above sources only quote Grigoryan, but I found a more direct source quoting Shahramanyan himself and then his office: Source 4.

From France 24:

"But in a surprise move on Friday, Shahramanyan rolled back on the announcement in comments given in Yerevan, the capital of Armenia.

“There is no document... of the Republic of Artsakh (Karabakh) stipulating the dissolution of government institutions.”

His office told AFP separately that the September 26 decree was 'empty paper,' adding: “No document can lead to the dissolution of the republic, which was established by people's will.”"

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Artsakh has not had any de facto control over the area since October, as far as I am aware. This is entirely about de jure dissolution, and to state that such a thing happened on January 1 we would need a source to say it did. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 01:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I see that there's a Russian source cited in the article to claim that Artsakh dissolved. But it only cites the September decree as a source so I'm not sure it's strong enough quality to be relied on. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 01:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

For the time being we can say that the dissolution date is according to the original decree but I am not sure if we can really say yet that it is de jure dissolved in wikivoice. Mellk (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@MarcusTraianus: I see that you have modified my edits to re-add the claim that it was de jure dissolved on January 1 with an edit summary stating that this is because other Artsakh politicians apparently disagreed with the president's annulling of the decree, but no such text is in the article, making the article read in a way that's kind of unclear. Are you able to cite a source to verify the assertion that the government was de jure dissolved in spite of the president reversing his prior decree? If not, could you self-revert? The sources we have indicate that no such dissolution happened on 1 January 2024.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 03:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

It is dissolved. All main post–Soviet media reported on that [1], [2], [3]. RIA stated that president's annul try '[c]aused a negative reaction from the Armenian authorities, who believe that the functioning of Karabakh State institutions in the republic will threaten the security of Armenia'. It means that move to annul wasn't supported by any UN-recognized states, and it makes dissolution irreversible, especially with army dissolved and population fled. MarcusTraianus (talk) 09:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, I don't think UN state support is that relevant here, but either way the de jure dissolution debate is a red herring. Like most states that have ended throughout history, the cause of dissolution wasn't any particular law. If reliable sources for some reason talk about de jure dissolution with any particular focus than we can see what their interpretation is, but absent that it's a minor footnote to the actual end of the functioning state. 10:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it's just a small detail, my goal here is just to make sure we get all the details right. My understanding from my reading of the sources is that the cause of dissolution was undoubtedly the takeover by Azerbaijan, not government institutions choosing to stand by the president's original decree while declining to recognize the president's later annulling of that decree. So I do think it was annulled, it just never really mattered what the president said. I think we can remove the statement that it was dissolved on January 1st because, aside from this statement being questionable and dubious, it's not really material to the story of how Artsakh ceased to exist. I appreciate that MarcusTraianus linked to some sources, but as a user said above (looks like their signature got malformed so I don't know who said it), UN-recognized states aren't really relevant here. No UN-recognized state ever officially recognized Artsakh to begin with, not even Armenia.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Universities Merge discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge. Merge performed by Vanjagenije. Note: closed by nominator. Cheers, Dan the Animator 22:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

---

Article has been more or less a stub for over a decade and likely has no chance of further expansion. Content is poorly sourced and article fails WP:GNG as-is. Content is better kept in its parent article (the main Artsakh page), where it would improve the comprehensiveness of the article. Would like to gain a consensus on this though since this isn't as straightforward as my other mergers to this article. Cheers, Dan the Animator 22:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Forgot to mention above but as an alternative merge destination, there's also a List of universities in Azerbaijan article that has a update orange tag currently. Dan the Animator 23:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi.

A) You forgot to add the link: List of universities in Artsakh.

B) Merger with Artsakh - yes, I can agree with that, maybe as a subsection of "Culture".

C) Merger with Azeri universities - rather not, and definitely not yet. It's not a matter of Wikipedia reorganising its material, but of Azerbaijan deciding what to do with anything connected to Artsakh. There's hardly any ethnically Armenian population left, the Az. authorities might close down a lot, and they'll most certainly rename everything and repurpose many. Keep it as part of an "Artsakh defunct project" article. RIP. What will be later is another story. Arminden (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Merged. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Law enforcement Merge discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge. Note: closed by nominator. Cheers, Dan the Animator 23:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

---

Article has been more or less a stub for over a decade and likely has no chance of further expansion. Content is mostly copied from other page (which are linked in the article itself) and there is not apparent need to have a separate page for this. Content would be much better kept in its parent article (the main Artsakh page) where it would really improve the comprehensiveness and also quality of the article. Would like to gain a consensus on this though since this isn't as straightforward as my other mergers to this article. Cheers, Dan the Animator 22:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Similar to topic above:

A) You forgot to add the link: Law enforcement in the Republic of Artsakh.

B) Merger with Artsakh - yes, that makes sense. Arminden (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Support Lucjim (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infobox "Dissolution" under Independence from Soviet Union

Underneath "Capitulation" dated to 28 September 2023, I think there should be a "Dissolution" dated to 1 January 2024 675930s (talk) 08:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Per above, the 1 January 2024 date should not be given too much prominence. CMD (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 February 2024

Republic of Artsakh has been de-coloured from blue for showing a linking page to black for plain text, on this page and multiple others that contain 'Republic of Artsakh' e.g. Armenia-Artsakh Relations, Artsakh Defence Force. 2A02:C7C:9B2C:9F00:2D45:FC4A:A1FB:AFD2 (talk) 11:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Dissolution date

The Republic of Artsakh was dissolved on 1st of January 2024, yet in the infobox it says "1991-2023" Gattor1 (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, the Republic of Artsakh ceased to exist on 1 January 2024 at 0:00:00 am, so technically, the country's life span is from 1991 to 31 December 2023 at 11:59:59 pm.

The Infobox is correct. 58.160.77.124 (talk) 11:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I can't see how that makes sense honestly Gattor1 (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Artsakh ceased to exist some time in September 2023, 1 January 2024 was just a date given in a statement well before that time. CMD (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, then its "president" says 1 january is incorrect, it's still existing, etc. Beshogur (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

That's childish, he should grow up and talk like a man. 58.160.77.124 (talk) 03:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

It should say it stills exists but is a goverment in exile MicroSupporter (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 March 2024

"Armenian refugees during the ethnic cleansing of Nagorno-Karabakh" This statement under the 2023 exodus photo is not only untrue but also conflicts with the article belonging to the photo. The article claims the exodus was because of the "fear of ethnic cleansing" and not because of "ethnic cleansing". Ethnic cleansing never happened. Even the Armenian side never claimed there was any ethnic cleansing. Not even a threat of ethnic cleansing could be substantiated. Olmaz (talk) 08:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. CMD (talk) 11:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done: It was clear what you wanted to change, and a simple reverse image source found secondary sources republishing the original primary image with an accurate caption. I have also modified the Commons photo description to reflect this. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Museums Merge discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Based on the comments made below and per WP:BOLD, I've merged to the sub-article Culture of Artsakh where the content from the List of museums in the Republic of Artsakh fits relatively well. Note: closed by nominator. Cheers, Dan the Animator 02:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

---

While not as old as the other articles above, this article's been a stub for over a year now and likely has no chance of further expansion. Content is poorly sourced and article fails WP:GNG as-is. Personally, I think it makes more sense to merge this content into the main Artsakh article given the museums are affiliated with Artsakh but I would also support merging to List of museums in Azerbaijan, which would benefit from the additional sourced content and also would improve the shared content imo. Would like to gain a consensus on this though since this isn't as straightforward as my other mergers to this article. Cheers, Dan the Animator 22:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis, Francis Tyers, Gog the Mild, SamuelRiv, Harut111, Parishan, Revolution Saga, Werldwayd, Arminden, Ліонкінг, Archives908, MirkoS18, SGGH, Alpha-Alpha 1890, and Akrasia25: pinging involved users. Feel free to participate in the other merge discussions I started above as well! Thanks everyone and sorry for the bother, Dan the Animator 23:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Merging the Republic of Artsakh article with the main Artsakh article would be beneficiary to safeguard the few actually sourcable content there is, and try to create a more content-rich article. I don't see why we should merge it with the museums article. Alpha-Alpha 1890 (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. I'm not sure what the best option is. I'm inclined to merge it all with general lists related to Azerbaijan but many affected institutions may stop their operations or/and move to Armenia. All of them could be mentioned in the main article about the historic republic as well (in case some of them moved to Armenia then in Armenian general lists as well, probably stating date of the move), but I think that main merge/redirect should go to corresponding articles on Azerbaijan. You may need to update general Azerbaijani articles correspondingly. Probably including sections with former institutions and institutions which were never formally recognised under Azerbaijan law but operated in the region (e.g. Artsakh University shall definitely be a part of the List of universities in Azerbaijan list irrespective of the fact that it was probably never formally recognised by Azerbaijani authorities).--MirkoS18 (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Similar to topics above:

A) You forgot to add the link: List of museums in the Republic of Artsakh.

B) Merger with Artsakh - yes, I can agree with that. We already have the National Museum as a subset to "Culture".

C) Merger with Azeri museums - no. As I wrote about the universities and even more so regarding the museums, Azerbaijan will decide what to do with anything connected to Artsakh. With no ethnically Armenian population left, the Az. authorities will close down most, or rename everything and replace the content. So rather no, keep it as part of the Artsakh article, may the whole Artsakh project RIP. If the Az. authorities will use the buildings for their own museums, then THOSE new museums should be added to the Az. list, with a mention of the Artsakh interlude (which the Az. Wiki-patriots will instantly remove). I don't expect any cultural continuity in any domain. See that pep talk by Monte Melkonian at the end of the "Monuments" section. Arminden (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

We shouldn't merge lists into this article, that's overloading the article with too many items. Hard to say what to do with this, they are probably defunct. I would not be opposed to a merge into an Azerbaijan list, it already includes museums older than Azerbaijan. If it must me merged into an Artsakh specific article, the obvious choice is the more dedicated Culture of Artsakh rather than jumping all the way up to this page. CMD (talk) 02:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Related to @Chipmunkdavis:, it seems reasonable to include the content from each list into multiple articles (for example Culture of Artsakh, Armenians in Azerbaijan, List of Museums in Azerbaijan...). The lists themselves may in fact be just deleted without any redirect or merge once content is moved. What I would say that it is very important to try our best to include content into general Azerbaijani lists by expanding them with "unrecognised" and/or former institutions which operated in the region. This is general English language Wikipedia so all of us should determine what belongs into those articles, they clearly and obviously don't belong to a certain group of editors alone. If there is some (probably quite justified) fear of biased or even xenophobic approach or editing conflict, it may be a constructive step (just an idea) if editors from local communities opt out from consensus building, particularly from mere vote accumulation without argument? Smart approach here would certainly show maturity and may challenge any unjustified negative preconception about local communities' capacities.--MirkoS18 (talk) 09:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Per CMD, I also think Culture of Artsakh might be a good merge-destination page. Even if the content is merged there, parts of the museums list can still be included on the Azerbaijan article or other locations per MirkoS18. I'll leave the discussion open a bit longer to get a better consensus but the culture article makes a lot of sense to me.

Also MirkoS18, to reply to your comment on who's contributing to the consensus, I don't there should be any restrictions. We're not vote counting so there can't be votestacking and consensus is usually based on the strength of an argument, not its support. Also, editors with ties to the region could bring in very helpful & perfectly valid points imo. Cheers, Dan the Animator 18:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Also should've posted this here earlier but I started another merge discussion yesterday at Talk:Economy_of_the_Republic_of_Artsakh#Merge_discussion. Feel free to take part in that discussion too if you can. Dan the Animator 18:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC) That merge discussion was closed & merge completed. Cheers, Dan the Animator 18:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Apologies if it sounded as if I am proposing any formal restrictions. Reflecting on our experiences in Balkans, it is sometimes good to take a step back and show certain restraint. No question that as a rule local editors will have comprehensively better understanding of the entire context and better knowledge of even basic factual evidence. I still believe that at least some of them may be more inclined to have certain level of (sometimes unconscious) bias towards one or the other side and it may be useful to keep it in mind to avoid disruptive arguing. Yet I am certainly not proposing any formal limitations, just maybe mistakenly assuming some of our regional experiences may be useful in this case. Apologies for somewhat long digression/clarification.--MirkoS18 (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

It is better to add this in the List of museums in Azerbaijan article as this land is in the Azerbaijan.

Oppose merge to List of museums in Azerbaijan - these were museums in the Republic of Artsakh and there is no evidence if any or all will operate under Azerbaijani control, they might be even closed and never operate again, we can't tell what will happen. So I don't agree with a merger. Vanezi (talk) 13:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Vanezi Astghik: what's your thoughts on merging to Culture of Artsakh? Dan the Animator 17:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose This country does not exist anymore, but the museums are still there. I reckon we should change the article title from List of museums in the Republic of Artsakh to List of museums in Nagorno-Karabakh instead. 2001:8003:9100:2C01:340F:C609:235A:EFE8 (talk) 09:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

seems like this discussion has been dead for almost 2 months but the ugly merge banner remains; i figure i might as well put my 2 cents in. support merging with Culture of Artsakh as that's more directly relevant & practical. this article is bloated as it is & i don't see a neat way to fit that information in. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 05:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Map that automatically appears first in lead infobox

I suggest that the 1994-2020 map should be the one which automatically pops up first when you open the article, because it lasted more years than the 2020-23 borders of Artsakh and was also the largest extent of the republic's borders. Evaporation123 (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Generally latest territory/map/flags are used on wiki. Beshogur (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Does that apply to states that no longer exist though? The articles on the Roman Empire, Russian State, and First Republic of Armenia, for example, all cover no longer existing polities and have maps in the infoboxes that depict their respective territorial peaks. Evaporation123 (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you point to an example? I can't think of a single former country where that is the case; I'd also generally argue that it's technically absurd to show the latest map of an extinct entity.

I guess what happened here is that it, rightly, showed the *current* map 2020-2023, and in 2023 updating "is" to "was" in the article was more important than changing the map. I concur with @Evaporation123's points, adding that Artsakh was effectively dead in 2020 already. Default map should be changed. EnTerbury (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Flag of Azerbaijan SSR

It's anachronistic to use Azerbaijan SSR flag, instead of its flag during NKAO's dissolution. It is the same flag with current one with different shade. Either use the correct one, or remove it completely. Beshogur (talk) 15:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

It is anachronistic to just write "Azerbaijan" or use that Azeri flag. NKAO's "dissolution" was 26 November 1991, and Azerbaijan's independence is officially 26 December 1991, so the name and flag are incorrect and anachronistic. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Your edit is anachronistic. Azerbaijan used the name Republic of Azerbaijan and this flag right from 5 February 1991. Does not matter whether it's recognized later or not. Beshogur (talk) 11:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay but notice how the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic article still uses the 1952–1991 flag, because it is the flag most commonly associated with the republic, which is why it should be the flag used here as well. And I assume you are not opposed to adding SSR back because you did not comment on it? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, Supreme Soviet of Azerbaijan or rather the "Supreme Soviet of the Azerbaijan Republic" back then abolished the NKAO. So it's kinda tricky. I rather remove predecessor, successor thing. Here is the abolition law. Beshogur (talk) 01:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The NKAO was was officially abolished on 26 November 1991, but Artsakh had declared independence on 2 September 1991 and had an official referendum on 10 December 1991 (Zürcher, p. 168), while also being a continuation of the same de facto government since 1989 (p. 165). --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, the name/flag change of Azerbaijan occured on 5 February 1991. Beshogur (talk) 11:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

But that's not the flag the Flag of the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic infobox uses. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The Republic of Artsakh declared independence on 2 September 1991 and held an official referendum on 10 December 1991. Azerbaijan declared independence on 18 October which became recognized when the USSR dissolved on 26 December. So by either metric, Azerbaijan SSR is not anachronistic. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

3O Response: Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons § Avoid flag icons in infoboxes and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons § Consistency is not paramount, remove the flags entirely. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 18:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Beshogur (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Should the parameter for flag icons be removed from Template:Infobox country then? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Considering they're in such a high-profile infobox, it's probably for a good reason. MOS is just a guideline, and it only says "avoid". You can take it up there if you want. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 11:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh: did it exist as a region during the 1918-1920 period

Quote: The predominantly Armenian-populated region of Nagorno-Karabakh was claimed by both the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic and the First Republic of Armenia when both countries became independent in 1918 after the fall of the Russian Empire.

Note: the period related to the quote obtains the 1918-1920 timeline.

Questions: Did the Nagorno-Karabakh region exist as an entity during the 1918-1920 period?

If yes, can anyone provide any reference to a region of "Nagorno-Karabakh" related to that period?

Can anyone provide the exact borders of the region (if it existed and was named "Nagorno-Karabakh")?

if the region of Nagorno-Karabakh did not officially exist during that period, how can one discuss whether it was predominantly populated by any of the ethnic groups? Hew Folly (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

"Region" is a generic and vague geographical term, and by its use often points to an area not being a geopolitical entity. If you are looking for a geopolitical entity, the Karabakh Council article covers that period, although the article's sourcing is poor. CMD (talk) 02:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. The map of the " 1918-1920 Karabakh Council" is not only unsourced but also falsified. You can check my explanation.Talk:Karabakh Council#A strange 1918-1920 map with a town that did not exist back then Hew Folly (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

In 1918-1920 Nagorno-Karabakh had all the trappings of statehood, including the army and the legitimate authority.In response to the peace initiatives of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijani Democratic Republic launched a military action https://usa.mfa.am/en/karabagh#:~:text=In%201918%2D1920%20Nagorno%2DKarabakh,Republic%20launched%20a%20military%20action. UnsungHistory (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The Armenian Embassy is not a reliable source. Hew Folly (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

TFD

Republic of Artsakh#:~:text=Artsakh Street in Watertown, Massachusetts in 2011

This is trivial, and shouldn't be included in the article. There are also no mentions of the street on neither the Watertown article or the Artsakh article excluding the trivial image on the Arksakh article, with no points provided to its significance. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense in the History section, assumed from the description it would be in Foreign relations. CMD (talk) 01:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Coat of arms' years of usage

Just like the flag, the coat of arms of the Republic of Artsakh wasn't immediately adopted in 1991 in the midst of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, similarly to how many other post-Soviet recognized or unrecognized states did not come up with their own non-communist symbols until as late as 1994 (e.g. Tajikistan). The description under the image of the coat of arms explicitly states 17 November 1992 as the date of adoption, hence that would make total sense to mention it in the infobox just as this information is mentioned on every historical state/entity article. CapLiber (talk) 04:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

someone should change “referandum” to “referendum” in the introduction

typo 222.154.32.160 (talk) 06:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

done - thanks for pointing it out! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 12:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Failed verification: 'the war was won by Artsakh'

Quote: The war was won by Artsakh with support from Armenia. Although a ceasefire agreement was signed in 1994, the frozen situation left the predominantly Armenian-populated territory de facto independent, with a self-proclaimed government in Stepanakert, but still heavily reliant on and closely integrated with Armenia, in many ways functioning as a de facto part of Armenia.

This ahistorical statement was provided with the following links:

1. https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/nagorno-karabakh-conflict

where you can not find a word about 'Artsakh', let alone 'Artsakh wining a war' but the following statement:

By 1993, Armenia had gained control of Nagorno-Karabakh and occupied 20 percent of Azerbaijan’s geographic area. In 1994, Russia brokered a ceasefire known as the Bishkek Protocol, leaving Nagorno-Karabakh de facto independent, with a self-proclaimed government in Stepanakert, but still heavily reliant on close economic, political, and military ties with Armenia.[4]

2. Hughes, James (2002). Ethnicity and Territory in the Former Soviet Union: Regions in Conflict. London: Cass. p. 211. ISBN 978-0-7146-8210-5.

provided with an irrelevant quote: "Indeed, Nagorno-Karabakh is de facto part of Armenia".

Conclusion: No source provide a statement that 'Artsakh' won any war. In fact, the unrecognized 'Nagorno-Karabakh Republic' wasn't even called 'Artsakh' before 2017 [5] [6] Hew Folly (talk) 07:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The territory was called Artsakh before 2017, 2017 just switched around the order of the official English names. The use of the term pre-2017 seems a reasonable way to be clear to readers within the article. CMD (talk) 08:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not reasonable to provide failed verification [7] [8]. Hew Folly (talk) 09:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The text you refer to is part of the WP:LEAD, it isn't expected to be verified in that way. The sources you quote are there for the "in many ways functioning as a de facto part of Armenia" text. CMD (talk) 09:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

As the saying goes, half truth is a lie. That's all included within one sentence[9], falsely supported by the upper-mentioned links. The sentence must be shortened. Hew Folly (talk) 11:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Quote from the WP:LEAD: The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy states that all quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports it[10]. Hew Folly (talk) 11:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

That sentence is not supported by the upper-mentioned links. It is part of the WP:LEAD, it is intended to be supported by the body, rather than by its own sources. The structure of the sentences involved is not affected by this. If you browse through WP:Featured articles, you will note that many do not have any citations in their lead at all. CMD (talk) 11:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The only part where 'Artsakh' is collocated with military issues is this one[11] [12] No mention about 'Artsakh' winning an entire war against Azerbaijan. Hew Folly (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Should Artsakh be labeled as a government-in-exile?

Apparently, Artsakh has a government-in-exile.

Should the article be changed to reflect that? Kxeon (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

if there's RS, then yes. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Its not in exile, Pashinyan has commented on this, that there is only 1 govt present in Armenia, and that Armenia is not and will not be hosting a Govt in exile. You guys are just doing vandalism on an article for which there was consensus for 6-7 months. What is prompting this change in July? nothing new has taken place. Midgetman433 (talk) 00:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Hmm.. even though Pashinyan says that there can only be one government in Armenia which is Armenia, Artsakh apparently continued on anyway still in Armenia? [13]
We can tell because they're being cracked down on. So the Armenian president seems to not want a Artsakh government-in-exile in Armenia, but they do it anyway it seems.
I wonder, does this count? I mean, Artsakh IS being cracked down on, and it's leaders being arrested, but the government still exists.
Now it seems like the question has turned kinda from: "Should Artsakh be labeled as a government-in-exile?", to "If a government doesn't want a government-in-exile to exist in their country and they stay, does it count?"
Considering the government-in-exile still exists, I personally believe that it does count as a government-in-exile. Even if it's unwanted by the government.
And as for the timing, I remembered Artsakh's existance and decided to look into it a little to see if they had a government-in-exile. And so that lead to this.
(I definitely have the feeling you'll say something about underresearch, but I actually did know about the fact that Pashinyan commented on it. But the government-in-exile still existed in my eyes. I guess I might have been too bold?) Kxeon (talk) 02:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

A government-in-exile existing does not mean the state exists, this article is not just about the government. Government of Artsakh may be a more relevant page for this information. CMD (talk) 02:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Alrighty. Should I at least change the infobox to make sure people at least know about the government-in-exile, and re-add that little part saying they were in-exile in Yerevan back to the top? Kxeon (talk) 11:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there is due weight for the lead, including the infobox. Is there a reason you did not add it into the body? CMD (talk) 11:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I felt the fact that it was a government-in-exile was pretty important information, so I added it to the top of the page and the infobox. Not the tippy top, but rather, at the lead and in the infobox. I took the little exile thing from the BNR. Chechnya also does this, but the exile thing is lower. They still put it in the infobox. Granted, the Ukrainian People's Republic's page doesn't do this but instead leaves a note saying they were in exile up until 1992.However that page also has a section for it's exile too... So then, it can either be at "2023 Azerbaijani offensive, exodus, and dissolution", adding exile to it to make "2023 Azerbaijani offensive, exodus, and dissolution", and we put a little note saying they were in exile since 2023 at their lifespan, or we put it at the head and change the dates to say that it is still alive. Or change the dates to say what it had said before when I changed it last time; "1991-2023, In exile: 2023-present"

Oh, by the way, we still need to change the status of Artsakh in the infobox for all of the solutions I could think of, to say that it is in exile and has been since 2023. Kxeon (talk) 11:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Artsakh is not in exile, there is a government-in-exile. Artsakh as a state was conquered in 2023. I haven't seen any source treat it in the way you suggest as a still-continuing entity, let alone it being a common treatment. CMD (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if you misunderstood the part saying to change the status of it to in exile. I thought you would interpret it as "government-in-exile"...
One of us is misunderstanding something here. Either you're misunderstanding me by interpreting it as Artsakh in-exile instead of Artsakh government-in-exile, or I'm misunderstanding you by misinterpreting your words and your interpretation of my comment. Kxeon (talk) 12:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

You said "to change the status of Artsakh in the infobox...to say that it is in exile". I don't think it makes sense to say Artsakh is in exile, nor have I seen sources to that point. CMD (talk) 12:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree. There are no sources that a govt in exile has been officially declared. And one of the reason for this is that Armenian intelligence services(they visited Samvel Shahramanyan according to reports) and Govt officials rejected the idea, to the point where they confiscated property and warned of arrests if such an attempt was made.

The authorities of the breakaway state are treated as private citizens by the Govt of Armenia, not govt officials of a state that is being hosted. Midgetman433 (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

So I did a quick Google search starting at the supposed time that the president of Artsakh had talked with Le Figaro ("Le Figaro" "Artsakh" "government-in-exile"), and found 19 results.
There are 7 results that are from social media, 6 if you don't count 301am, so we get a result of 12 or 13 results.

the Google search link

Now then, this might not solve much because I didn't the article's apparent source from Le Figaro, because I can't speak French.
If I don't speak French, then it'll be hard for me to navigate the site, or even find what we're looking for.
Kxeon (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Alrighty. The good news is: I finally got a date, March 27. I used it to find the Article and it went swell! The Article

The bad news is, this article is reserved for Subscribers of Le Figaro. No fact-checking today, I guess. Gonna have to find a way to get around this paywall. Kxeon (talk) 14:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Aaaaaand there's no way to get past it, I have no choice but to pay something that I can't. I really hope someone tries to get the Le Figaro subscription and fact-check it to see if it's actually what it is said to be. Because I can't. Kxeon (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Luckily, there is a source from Radio Free Europe, which is definitely reliable, that says this. Radio Free Europe - Karabakh Figures Reject Pashinian’s Threats Line 3: "In an interview with France’s Le Figaro daily published on Wednesday, Shahramanian said that the self-proclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR) continues to exist despite Karabakh’s recapture by Baku." @Chipmunkdavis: @Midgetman433: Kxeon (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

So then. I finally managed to get past Le Figaro's paywall. I have added the primary, main, source for everyone saying there is a GiE. Now that I have the source and it pretty clearly says that the president himself responded to the question asking if Artsakh exists as a government-in-exile with yes.

Now that that has been cleared up, once more, should it be labeled as a government-in-exile in the infobox, like the Belarusian People's Republic and the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria? Kxeon (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

No, this article is not about the government. CMD (talk) 03:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, they seem to also.. hold on, is that a section about the Government of Artsakh... in the article that's supposedly not about the government? What in the world...

Either I've just found a big hole to punch a pin through in your main argument or this is irrelevant and it's still not about the government.

Which from what I can tell, would make Ichkeria also lose it's indicator of a government-in-exile too, as it talks about the government to a relatively same degree, as it definitely seems by as look at the article.

So what's the deal here? Kxeon (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I apologise but I don't understand what you're saying. If WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS there is always the possibility it could be fixed. CMD (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking into what you just sent; I think what I just pulled was a WP:OTHERCONTENT. Kxeon (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Alrighty then, so I may want to clarify exactly what I was trying to argue here.

I tried to argue that they clearly had a section about the government in the page, a pretty big one infact.

And thus, it should definitely be about the government.

Problem is, this might be tripping WP:OTHERCONTENT as stated before.Kxeon (talk) 22:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Currently the body says implying that the republic may continue as a government-in-exile while the lead states that a government-in-exile was formed. Also, we need a secondary source for this, rather than using the interview. Mellk (talk) 13:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it's pointless. What's the purpose now? Do they even operate? Beshogur (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

From what I found, the Armenian parliament speaker Alen Simonyan said that Artsakh was no longer a legal entity while this was disputed. "In a statement issued later on Monday, Gagik Baghunts, the acting speaker of the Karabakh parliament, insisted that it continues to function in exile".[14] I wonder if there is a secondary source that definitively says that a government-in-exile was formed, but I have not found any. From what I remember, Pashinyan said that there was no government-in-exile. Mellk (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Using Artsakh or Nagorno Karabakh

there is a line in the etymology that says "it is the preferred name..." but doesn't say if the "it" refers to Artsakh or Nagorno Karabakh 80.233.72.161 (talk) 08:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Specified, and made past tense. CMD (talk) 13:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

It was dissolved in 2024, not 2023

1 January 2024. 86.31.178.164 (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

That was a date thrown out at one point, but it does not reflect what actually happened. CMD (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Is it WP:DUE to mention the dissolution date of the decree and that the president attempted to annul this in the lead? Mellk (talk) 02:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I doubt it, but these events are still recent so that could change, and it seems harmless enough. CMD (talk) 02:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I guess when a peace deal is finally reached we can update this part of the lead. Mellk (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Clarifying language in the introductory paragraph

Can someone with access please update the introductory paragraph to explain that Armenians considered Artsakh to be an Armenian enclave? The current language only states that it was an “enclave” within Azerbaijani territory, but it makes no mention of the relation to Armenians, which is basic and important information that should be included objectively in the introductory paragraph. Otherwise, to a reader who’s not already familiar with the topic, it’s not clear why the territory was disputed and the reference to the “only overland access route to Armenia” seems like a non sequitur. Hyacinth house (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Armenia the country did not actually claim Artsakh or consider it an exclave. The history is explained to some extent starting in the second paragraph, I don't think we can expect the opening paragraph to handle that as well. CMD (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Those are Armenia civilians

Armenian civilians were "relocated" Not settlers. And they were driven out, deported Not relocated 2A02:810D:808E:7500:4041:A660:E742:1A82 (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

It's logically impossible to be deported without being relocated. --86.31.178.164 (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

GIE

Add "Government in exile (2000–present)" in the infobox as in Ichkeriya infobox 88.203.221.138 (talk) 15:01, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

There is no mention of a government-in-exile anywhere in the article (and certainly not since 2000). You need to provide sources. I am pretty sure this was mentioned before in a previous discussion. Mellk (talk) 07:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

This person is confussing Artsakh with Chechnya. --86.31.178.164 (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Government in exile

Artsakh's parliament is still functioning. It elected a new speaker in May 2025. Should we reflect this? 86.31.178.164 (talk) 12:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I suggest adding: "Artsakh continues to function as a government-in-exile. On 21 May 2025, Samvel Shahramanyan's presidential term expired. As a result, Ashot Danielyan, who was also elected President of the National Assembly in exile, assumed presidential powers." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.178.164 (talk) 12:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

This source does not explicitly refer to a government-in-exile, although, yes this is implied. I think I have mentioned before that we needed a good source to refer to the existence of a government-in-exile, due to WP:V, and also since Pashinyan stated one did not exist. Although this was probably a while ago now. Mellk (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Further, a government-in-exile is not a functioning state. "Artsakh continues to function" confuses different topics. CMD (talk) 02:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

References