Jump to content

Talk:Republic of Artsakh

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Coat of arms' years of usage

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

[edit]

Apparently, Artsakh has a government-in-exile.

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

if there's RS, then yes. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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? [1]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
No, this article is not about the government. CMD (talk) 03:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Looking into what you just sent; I think what I just pulled was a WP:OTHERCONTENT. Kxeon (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I think it's pointless. What's the purpose now? Do they even operate? Beshogur (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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".[2] 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)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

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

Failed verification: 'the war was won by Artsakh'

[edit]

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.[3]

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 [4] [5] Hew Folly (talk) 07:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
It is not reasonable to provide failed verification [6] [7]. Hew Folly (talk) 09:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
As the saying goes, half truth is a lie. That's all included within one sentence[8], falsely supported by the upper-mentioned links. The sentence must be shortened. Hew Folly (talk) 11:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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[9]. Hew Folly (talk) 11:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
The only part where 'Artsakh' is collocated with military issues is this one[10] [11] No mention about 'Artsakh' winning an entire war against Azerbaijan. Hew Folly (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republic_of_Artsakh&oldid=1253003533"