Talk:Shusha

Edit the Article

Dear ZaniGiovanni, why do you always without discussion undo? 1. It's not correct for encyclopedic article to use different names, in any case all names are noted in the article. 2. As regards to context, I keep "Shushi in Armenian", but we talked about the city "Shusha". where do you see problem in "Shusha (or Shushi, as it is known in Armenian) served... "? 3. From 3 reliable sources 1 says "Shusha" also, 2 of them say "Shushi" because of both are Armenian and say in Armenian. And it doesn't mean absolute veryfication. No independent source. --Aydin mirza (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Aydin mirza: I've reworded the section to try and steer a way around the dispute by simply avoiding the contested usages. Also, please avoid re-reverting when you have already been reverted once. While I appreciate you starting this talk page section, you should wait until the discussion is finished before going back and making the change again – please remember that edit warring is disruptive in any amount. Jr8825 • Talk 01:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

It seems like Aydin mirza is back with his WP:TENDENTIOUS style edits. Aydin, consider this a last warning, as I'm not going to tolerate your WP:OR and POV edits like last time.

First, do not re-revert, that is not how Wikipedia operates especially on contentious topics like this.

Secondly, when you get reverted, it's on you to achieve consensus for your changes since you are the one modifying the article, per WP:ONUS, WP:CONSENSUS.

You're asking me why I "undo" your edit without discussion, when you didn't even start one to begin with? You only started this discussion after reverting my revert [1], which isn't creating a cooperative environment for any of the editors. I'm not obliged to start a discussion, do you understand that or not? As I'm not the one changing/removing/adding anything to the article, you are. I already explained this to you multiple times in the past, but you still act the same.

Lastly, this isn't Russian or Azerbaijani Wikipedia, where you probably think your single purpose behavior and disruptive editing can pass:

Since when repeating for the bazillion time "Shusha" [2] is an improvement to the article? The sentence literally talks about how Shushi was an ancient fortress of the Armenian Principality of Varanda, what the hell "Shusha" has to do with this sentence and in this context, when overwhelming majority if not all reliable sources clearly state that the Armenian name of the city was and is Shushi ? Do you think the Armenian Principality of Varanda called the town "Shusha"? Do you have reliable sources for that? If not, then why in the hell you're disrupting the article and adding and re-reverting your WP:OR? [3] [4]

I know why you're doing this, and to any reasonable person it's very clear. Just a glance at your contributions to this project will reveal it. In any case, consider this as a last warning from me, as I will report you if you continue this POV and disruptive behavior.

In the meantime @Jr8825, I restored the stable version of the article. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 05:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Jr8825,ok,let's wait until discussion is over. But let's discuss. What's wrong with "Shusha, or Shushi as known in Armenian,..."? 1.There is sources say (majorify of relieble sources) that this city or fortress was built in 18c.by Panah khan. 2.As regards to name Shushi, the sources are Armenian and they say in their language.It's controvercial subject,and pls, give us neutral sources(WP:NPOV, WP:PSCI). Aydin Mirza Aydin mirza (talk) 21:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@ZaniGiovanni: is there any chance could you provide some of the sources that attest to the medieval origin? The current sources don't seem to, but I'm using machine translation for the Russian quotes. I'm also aware there are 8 pages of talk page archives and I'm sure this argument has been had many times in the past. @Aydin mirza: I'm a bit busy at the moment, but it would be helpful if you looked through the archives and provided links to the previous discussions on this issue, as I expect other editors will have looked at the sources for this. Jr8825 • Talk 18:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jr8825: There was the Emin source I added, which I see you recently moved from being a source for the medieval origin to the city being founded in 1750, when it says otherwise. The Emin source confirms it was previously an Armenian hamlet, and only refers to a fortress (not a city) being built, and says the construction was done by the Armenian melik Shahnazar, and does not use any terminology like "founded". --Steverci (talk) 23:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@Steverci: I moved it because the citation quote is "Shahnazar laid the foundation store, and the fortress was completed in 1752, the people of the village of Shoshi were brought to live there, and it was named Shoshi or Shushi fortress" and I conflated it with the alleged founding by Panah Ali Khan because of the same 1752 date. I've now moved it to the sentence which says sources disagree over when the city was founded – although even then, it doesn't directly support that statement. We have confusingly contradictory sources – most agree on the 1752 date, but although the majority seem to point to its founding by a Turk (Panah Ali Khan) we also have some suggesting it was an Armenian (Shahnazar). The claim whose sourcing looks weakest to me is the statement that the Armenian fortress was medieval, because the sources we have for this only describe an "ancient" fortress (i.e. undated, old). I'm not seeing where the statement it was medieval is explicitly made – this seems to be largely inference/interpretation – do you know of sources which state categorically it was medieval? Otherwise, I think we'll have to reword the lead sentence which says it was medieval, simply recounting that the sources say there was an "ancient" fortress like we do in the article body. I'm going to pick up the Bertsch, Jones and Craft book from my university library today to see what that says (it's currently being used to support the sentence "It was one of the two main Armenian settlements in the Transcaucasus, and the center of the self-governing Melikdoms of Karabakh until the 1750s"). Jr8825 • Talk 12:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jr8825: The book Shushi: The City of Tragic Fate (1999) written by Shahen Mkrtchyan, a prominent historian, states:

"The medieval history of Armenia contains numerous references to the indomitable fortress of Shushi as the singular gift of nature. It has been an eagle's nest for the princes of Artsakh Sakhla Smbatian (ninth century A.D.), Hasan Jalalian (11th century A.D.), melik Shahnazarian..." (page 8)

"These foundations have lasted to our days. An inscription on page 264 of manuscript # 4375 in the Matendadaran attests to the fact that there are references to the city of Shushi dated substantially earlier than the 18th century. It reads: "In the region of Pos of the province of Varanda in a village called Shusho, under the patronage of Saint..." (page 9)

There was clearly already an existing settlement with the same name at the same location before 1752. Maybe it was reinforced or expanded that year, but saying it was "founded" is patently false. --Steverci (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Steverci: thanks for digging those quotes out, they are helpful. One thing to note though is that while the fortress is described as having a "medieval history", the only dating we have for the town/village itself is once again "substantially earlier than the 18th century", which ties in with the "ancient" label above. This is compatible with the article's current wording, so I think that's fine. We do need to be mindful of making statements which aren't explicitly supported though (for example, saying "the town was founded in the Middle Ages" would be WP:SYNTH). Jr8825 • Talk 18:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Jr8825. I will see, as you advice, previous discussion. I approciate your attention and editions. It's not point to keep the information in the article about "Shushi" as the city or fortress refered to "Principality of Varanda (until early 17th century part of principality of Dizak, under the leadership of the Melik Shahnazarian family"), while all relieble and neutral sources (Armenians also, Raffi for example) say that this fortress and city was built by Panah khan in the middle of 18 century. As I find the links, I'll provide. --Aydin mirza (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Dear all, this is onle of the archieved discussion on Talk Page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AShusha%2FArchive_6?oldformat=true . In discussion you can find that there are a few relieble sources (encyclopedic editions, primery sources) say about city as Shusha and was built by Panah khan in the middle of 18c. and it was empty spot. As regards to name "Shushi", there is no clear proof that it was city or fortress, and not village. Even Emin Joseph (one source) says about the village. let me remind WP:ORIGINALSEARCH, we can't talk here what the author talks exactly about. --Aydin mirza (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Aydin mirza: I looked through the archives for you and the most relevant thread looks to be this massive 2013 thread (which I have not yet read in its entirety). You might want to look through and see which sources are discussed. That also reminds of your related edit request from earlier this year, which I closed on procedural grounds because consensus was needed first. Some discussion of the sources also took place there. Jr8825 • Talk 12:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Jr8825, yes, I've already sent the same link above. We can fid only in 2013 similar discussion. I've read it, there are the same arguments, approximately same sources. But if you see point to put some links with sources here, I will choose the mains and paste it here. I will do it in couple of days.it was very long discussion, I'll try to collect the main and introduce it shortly. Thank you for advices. --Aydin mirza (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Hello. There is citation in the section "Culture" - Crossroads and Conflict Security and Foreign Policy in the Caucasus and Central Asia

Edited By Gary K. Bertsch, Cassady B. Craft, Scott A. Jones, Michael D. Beck. The authors are not specialists in ancient or medieval history. --Aydin mirza (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

the cited section is the most uncontroversial and simple statement ever, do we need specialists to say that the sky is blue? - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• • Kevo327, do you think that a.m.information is really so uncontroversial? No need to reply:)) 1. It's article about the city Shusha, not Shusha destrict. We find enough information confirming that the city was always important for both communities (Armenian and Azerbaijani). 2. if someone wants to insert the information like "..while the surrounding territories also include many ancient Armenian villages", pls, provide with the relieble sources, even if you thisnk that it's uncontroversial and simple statement. Sorry, but the sky we can see, while the ancient armenian villages surround Shusha - can't. --Aydin mirza (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Jr8825. Sorry for desturb, but I need your advice again. I put template "not revieble source" and of cause another Users undo. Why can't I ask relieble source? I'd like to pay attention that the same Users don't let me to insert the information with relieble sources in the article Kapan. Here is WP:JDLI, but in the article Kapan not. Why? Honestly, I think that I can revert last undo. Is it against the guidelines?--Aydin mirza (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Aydin mirza you got a warning for your comments in Talk:Kapan#Edition and sources, after you essentially withdrew from the discussion. All of this was explained to you by El C in your talk page. Yet you're here, in a completely different article's talk page, asking another editor:

"Users don't let me to insert the information with relieble sources in the article Kapan"

What are you exactly trying to do by this? Why didn't you continue the discussion in Kapan? I'm starting to think this is going to WP:NOTTHERE territory. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Dear ‎ZaniGiovanni, 1. if this information is so uncontroversial, it's very easy to provide with the really relieble sources. Nobody can says that "we don't need specialists to say that the sky is blue" concerning any historian infornmation 2. As regards to WP:JDLI, let me remind you the article Kapan, where you don't let me insert the info with the releible source. 70 years the city had another name, but you don't let to note it. Why? Maybe because of WP:JDLI. So, don't make troubles, we are here to make this Project better. --Aydin mirza (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Same thing, yet again. First you withdrew from the discussion in Kapan, now you're bringing it up in another article's talk page and judging by your comments, it seems like you didn't even read my answer to you previously, maybe have a look (and please don't misrepresent my position ever again) Talk:Kapan#Edition and sources. Indeed, this seems like a one big WP:JDLI.

When it comes to this article (which you should probably be focused on, just maybe), I removed your tag as your only reason for it was:

"the authors are not reliable in the field of medieval or ancient history."[5]

Why aren't they reliable? What made you arrive to this conclusion? Nothing, no explanation given. Maybe you could enlighten us finally?

Lastly, it wouldn't be entirely unreasonable judging by your comments, continual mention of another article (in a different article's talk page) even after you withdrew from the discussion, and your contributions' history, that you are not actually here to make the project better. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

User talk:ZaniGiovanni, I explained, but you don't read my explainations(or don't accept). Repeat for you once more. Gary K. Bertsch, can you say us who is he? is he historian? is he specialist in ancient history of Caucasian region? And lastly once more concerning "why aren't they relieble?",it's especially for you from Wikipedia WP:SOURCEDEF - Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people. According to you, any western-speaking author can be relieble. All these authors are not in relation to the subject(history of the city Shusha). Honestly, this sentence is not so huge problem. And I don't say that the villages weren't Armenian, but it's article about the city, not destrict, no point to insert it here. But in case you think, it should be kept, provide with the relieble source. I think, discussion with you is over. --Aydin mirza (talk) 23:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Aydin mirza: all the indications are that Bertsch et al. is a very good source. It's published by Routledge, an academic publisher with a strong reputation. I see no reason to question its reliability. Jr8825 • Talk 00:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

User Talk:Jr8825, no doubt in good reputation of the publisher or author, but he is not regarded to the subject. If you think so, I don't wanna to spend more time for this, considering your neutral position in this discussion. As I understand, any source with good reputation is acceptable (without any regarding to the subject), isn't it? If you let me, I will apply to you reg another articles, when it's needed. --Aydin mirza (talk) 23:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Aydin mirza: An academic publisher such as Routledge will editorially review the content it publishes, which suggests the authors have relevant expertise. Jr8825 • Talk 18:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, User:Jr8825. ok, I see, no question more reg this subject. Sorry, it took time, but there is difference comparing Russian and German Projects(they are more carefull with the sources). I'll consider it. Thank you for your attention and support. Aydin mirza (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, reg "attributing this to an alliance between Shahnazar, the local Armenian prince (melik) of Varanda, and Panah Ali Khan, founder of the Karabakh Khanate", it looks like Original Search of AntonSamuel, it drives the readers to the wrong direction. Melikdoms were subordinated establishment. There is no source (inkluded citiations in the article) said in this way. Panah-Ali Khan Javanshir of Karabakh established and subordinating the Five Melikdoms, with support of the Armenian prince Melik Shahnazar II Shahnazarian of Varanda, who first accepted Panah-Ali Khan's suzerainty. An alliance is union or any relationship between equal partner. --Aydin mirza (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Country section in the template

Hello. The template should only include Azerbaijan as 3rd party international sources agree that it's an internationally recognized and integral part of Azerbaijan, now, since 8th of November controlled by Azerbaijan as well. So, there's no reason for the self-proclaimed state of Artsakh being added there. One may argue that "Artsakhi" and Armenian sources claim that it has lost its control but claim the land, then how? Artsakh has 0 control in the area. Toghrul R (talk) 11:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Please read any of the talk pages on any of the Azeri/ Artsakh articles for an answer to your question. A slow, tense agreement has been achieved. Please don't unravel it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Laurel Lodged i understand there's been mb's of discussions before, but the citation was retrieved on 7 September 2021, so it's a newer one. And inside of that manipulating reference there's not even a single word related to Shusha. What can we do in this case? Toghrul R (talk) 11:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

there are many Aseri/Armenian(Artsak) articles, and no point to apply to them, because it means to loose time. there is guidelines and we should just follow. User talk:Toghrul, maybe better to apply to expirienced Users and try to open discussion here. --Aydin mirza (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Note according to the OSCE Minsk co-chairs the status of Nagorno-Karbakah is still unresolved. Maidyouneed (talk) 07:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. If even the status will be solved, nobody talks about the territory backing under the control of Azerbaijan. And Shusha nobody can back while according international law it belongs to Azerbaijan(now de-jure and de-facto). Aydin mirza (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

The article says that the Shusha is a city in Nagorno-Karabakh. But it makes no mention of Azerbaijan. Nagorno-Karabakh is not a country. The lead should mention that it is a city in Azerbaijan, since it is de-jure and de-facto under Azerbaijani jurisdiction. Grandmaster 19:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Stable lead

This version of the lead has been stable for at least a year until it was messed up in August with subsequent reverts. The edit summary "a more neutral p." has been bogus, because since then one version of the town's founding is presented as a fact and is preferred more than the other. I suggest restoring the stable lead version, potential changes to it could be discussed after that. Brandmeister^talk 21:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Stable version should be restored, any amendments to it should be discussed here. Recent changes were made without any discussion or consensus at talk. Grandmaster 21:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you have a quite good understanding of what stable version is. You're linking a month-old version, saying it is "stable" and hence "should be restored". Those month-old edits were not challenged, and enjoyed consensus, at the very least vaguely per WP:SILENCE.

New edits being reverted are the ones that need to have consensus for inclusion, so I suggest focusing on those rather than saying a month-old edit "is the stable version". Also, I think this type of situation was already discussed in WP:AE, and editors arrived to the same conclusion basically. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

A month old version is not stable, considering that no one has ever discussed this: [6] August is the time when many editors are on holiday, and thus these POV edits went unnoticed. It does not mean that those edits became accepted. How can anyone remove the country where the city is located, and present a minority fringe version of city foundation as a fact, and claim it to be a stable version? Grandmaster 21:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

How come redacting the country in which the city is located anything but terrible editorial work? The city is both de jure and de facto located in Azerbaijan, the article link of Shusha District also says it is located in Azerbaijan. There is no reason to redact that information. Political biases should be kept out at all times. Support for reverting to stable version.DriedGrape (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: the article has 130 watchers, of which 40 have checked the article recently, you can verify this in the "page information" tab, "Everyone was on vacation" and "nobody noticed" are statistically incorrect statements. The lead is stable for me, and starting your edits by removing sourced information and adding weasel words isn't a good way of showing your good intentions towards making an encyclopedic article. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• I share Brandmeister's concerns. From the examination of the sources I've done so far (admittedly limited, particularly as I can't read Cyrillic and I'm reliant on machine translation for the non-English sources), the emphasis on the medieval Armenian origins seems likely to be undue, as most sources talk about a 1750s foundation. Unfortunately I've been busy over the last few days and didn't manage to borrow "Crossroads and Conflict: Security and Foreign Policy in the Caucasus and Central Asia" from my library, which is supporting the key statement "It was one of the two main Armenian settlements in the Transcaucasus, and the center of the self-governing Melikdoms of Karabakh until the 1750s". I will aim to do so tomorrow. If that source is being inaccurately used, I think we should be looking at restoring a version similar to the stable one, per Brandmeister's suggestion. Conversely, if the source does appropriately support that statement, I think that it'd illustrate an acceptance among international scholarship that the town had pre-18th century origins, and so we should be looking to maintain a version similar to the current chronological one. I hope to get back to this soon. Jr8825 • Talk 00:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for help. The problem with this source is that it is not a book on history, and authors are not historians, but politologists: [7] I think for claims on ancient history we need to use specialist sources, not political scientists whose specialization is modern politics. Grandmaster 08:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

  The source is available here: [8] As one can see, it is not a historical research, but a study of the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and the author has never done any researches on the ancient history of the region, that is not his specialization. [9] Grandmaster 08:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• Between the Matenadaran manuscript and various 18th century Russian sources, it seems quite obvious that the claim of being founded in 1752 is historical negationism to erase the city's Armenian origin. The lead is perfectly stable as it is, and is far more reflective of due weight than it was previously. --Steverci (talk) 01:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  1752 foundation is what is generally accepted by science for centuries. How could it be "historical negationism"? It makes no sense. Now a minority view is presented as a fact, in violation of WP:WEIGHT. Grandmaster 07:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Mkrtchyan provided documented scientific proof that Shushi is much older. --Steverci (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• One month does not establish a stable lead, but in either case it would be good to have the specific issues more clearly laid out here, as the diff is not one that is easy to parse without wikiEd. As an aside to that issue, in both versions, the "centre of Azerbaijan's Shusha District" part needs to be revised. Shusha is both at the edge of Azerbaijan's de facto control, and in the Northeast of the asserted district. I suspect it is a holdover from previous wording on Shushi Province that wasn't properly changed. I would suggest simply removing the early mention district, as I doubt it's that significant, and isn't mentioned in the article body. CMD (talk) 03:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
• The source listed above states: "Moreover, Shusha, along with Tbilisi (Tiflis), was at one time one of the two main Armenian cities of the Transcaucasus and the center of a self-governing Armenian principality in the 1720s.". That tends to undermine the 1752 foundation claim. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes. The stable version of the article had two paragraphs in the lead about the founding. The first paragraph started with According to some sources, the town of Shusha was founded in 1752 by Panah Ali Khan and the second one was about Armenian version, starting Other sources suggest that Shushi, as it is known in Armenian, served as a town and an ancient fortress in the Armenian Principality of Varanda during the Middle Ages and through the 18th century. Now that balance is gone. Brandmeister^talk 10:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Ah. In which case the balance needs to be restored. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I've been looking at the lead of this article for a while - with the main issue to me being in relation to the historical negationism of Armenian history - that the history of the town is not being taken into account properly, I would recommend using a chronological order of events as a basis as much as possible to come up with a good stable version. AntonSamuel (talk) 08:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Majority and minority views should be properly attributed according to WP:Weight. Grandmaster 08:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for changes

There are a few things to note here. I'm not sure the stable version which Brandmeister has identified is an unqualified improvement over the current version (see diff) – both have their strengths and weaknesses. I'm not opposed to restoring the old version, but I don't think the problematic additions are too hard to fix either, so I'd prefer to work with what we have now.

A clear problem with the current version is the removal of "Azerbaijan" from the opening sentence. However, as Chipmunkdavis points out, the previous wording was less than ideal as the city is not "central" to the district and on the edge of Azerbaijani control (also, the district is relatively unimportant). I suggest the following wording: "is a city in Azerbaijan, in the region of Nagorno-Karabakh." I'm open to other suggestions – I'm trying to avoid the phrasing "is a city in Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan" as I think that implies Azerbaijani control of the entire region.

Other problems with the current lead are centred around the changes to the Armenian history. As far as I can tell there are no sources which explicitly say the town of Shusha has a medieval origin. I discussed this in a thread further up page and asked if anyone could provide sources which support the medieval claim. Armenian sources referring to a medieval fortress were brought up, so I subsequently removed "town" from the medieval sentence so that it focuses solely on the fortress. That said, we're still reliant solely on a single Armenian historian (Shahen Mkrtchyan) for the explicit medieval connection – I suggest keeping this wording (as it's sort-of corroborated by the sources which attest to an "ancient" fortress) but I think it's worth keeping an open mind and looking for other sources going forward. Further to this, the sentence "it was one of the two main Armenian settlements in the Transcaucasus, and the center of the self-governing Melikdoms of Karabakh until the 1750s" is an inaccurate representation of the source, which only gives a narrow time frame ("in the 1720s"). Some editors, particularly Grandmaster, have questioned the reliability of the source itself (Bertsch et al.), but, as I mentioned in the above thread, I disagree. I agree it's not the ideal source (it's approaching the subject from a current affairs standpoint, and the section we're quoting (p.297) is from an explanatory endnote without a supporting cite), but it may be the best source currently available: it has a reputable academic publisher (Routledge), multiple editors with regional expertise, has been purchased by my university's library (a decent indication of the book's reputation) and the chapter author, Edward Walker, is described as "Executive Director of the University of California Berkley Program in Soviet and Post-Soviet Studies". He looks like a well-established scholar with knowledge of the region's history to me, and I'd prefer it to a journalistic source, or a book published in Armenia/Azerbaijan. Largely because of this source, I think we should be careful to completely dismiss claims that Shusha was established prior to 1752, or attribute it solely to "Armenian sources".

One improvement in the current revision, in my view, is the reordering of the lead to place the Armenian history first, which makes sense from a chronological point of view. The old version placed the post-1752 Azeri history before the earlier Armenian history. I suppose the basis for this ordering was that the documentary evidence is stronger and (perhaps) an assumption that the town may have greater cultural significance to Azeris – I don't think that's an editorial judgement we as Wikipedians want to be making, particularly in this topic. I therefore favour keeping the current order with a rewrite, so that it succinctly deals with the earlier Armenian history first, before addressing post-1752 Azeri history. I suggest breaking off the sentences on the religious/cultural/strategic importance of the town to both groups into a separate paragraph, to make it clearer that we're summarising the chronological history first, rather than presenting two "sides" one after the other.

Here's my proposed rewrite:

Proposed lead (updated)

Shusha (Azerbaijani: Şuşa, ) or Shushi (Armenian: Շուշի) is a city in Azerbaijan, in the region of Nagorno-Karabakh. Situated at an altitude of 1,400–1,800 metres (4,600–5,900 ft) in the Karabakh mountains, the city was a mountain resort in the Soviet era. There are differing accounts regarding the town's origins. Most sources date Shusha's establishment to 1752, attributing this to Panah Ali Khan, founder of the Karabakh Khanate. Panah Ali chose the site on the advice of his ally Shahnazar, the local Armenian prince (melik) of Varanda, who may have assisted in its construction in order to gain an advantage against the neighbouring princes. In these accounts, the name originated from a nearby Armenian village called Shosh or Shushikent. Conversely, some sources describe Shusha as being the center of the self-governing Melikdoms of Karabakh in the 1720s, and others claim the plateau was already the site of an "ancient" Armenian fortification which was transferred to, or seized by, Panah Ali Khan. From the mid-18th century to 1822, Shusha was the capital of the Karabakh Khanate. The town became one of the cultural centers of the South Caucasus after the Russian conquest of the Caucasus region from Qajar Iran in the first half of the 19th century. Over the course of the 19th century, the town grew in size to become a city, and was home to many Armenian and Azeri intellectuals, poets, writers and musicians (including Azeri ashiks, mugham singers and kobuz players). The town has religious, cultural and strategic importance to both groups. Shusha is often considered the cradle of Azerbaijan's music and poetry, and one of the leading centres of the Azerbaijani culture. Shusha also contains a number of Armenian Apostolic churches, including Ghazanchetsots Cathedral and Kanach Zham, and serves as a land link between Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia, via the Lachin corridor to the west. Throughout modern history, the city fostered a mixed Armenian–Azerbaijani population. The first available demographic information about the city in 1823 suggests the city had an Azerbaijani majority. However, the number of Armenian inhabitants of the city steadily grew over time to constitute a majority of the city's population until the Shusha massacre in 1920, in which the Armenian half of the city was destroyed by Azerbaijani forces, resulting in the death or expulsion of the Armenian population, up to 20,000 people. After the capture of Shusha in 1992 by Armenian forces during First Nagorno-Karabakh War, the city's Azerbaijani population was expelled. According to journalist Thomas de Waal's reckoning during a visit in 2000, it was 80% ruined. Between May 1992 and November 2020, Shusha was under the de facto control of the self-proclaimed Republic of Artsakh and administered as the centre of its Shushi Province. On 8 November 2020, Azerbaijani forces retook the city during the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War following a three-day long battle. The Armenian population of the city fled, and multiple reports emerged that the Armenian cultural heritage of the city was being destroyed. References Walker, Edward (2000). "No War, No Peace in The Caucasus: Contested Sovereignty in Chechnya, Abkhazia, and Karabakh". In Bertsch, Gary K.; Craft, Cassady; Jones, Scott A.; Beck, Michael (eds.). Crossroads and Conflict: Security and Foreign Policy in The Caucasus and Central Asia. New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-92274-6. Proposed text diff − '''Shusha''' or '''Shushi''' is a city in [[Nagorno-Karabakh]] and the centre of the region's [[Shusha District]]. Situated at an altitude of 1,400–1,800 metres (4,600–5,900 ft) in the [[Karabakh]] mountains, the city was a mountain resort in the [[Soviet Union|Soviet era]]. The plateau was the site of a fortress in the Armenian [[Melikdoms of Karabakh#Autonomy|Principality of Varanda]] during the [[Middle Ages]] and through the 18th century. It was one of the two main Armenian settlements in the [[Transcaucasus]], and the center of the self-governing [[Melikdoms of Karabakh]] until the 1750s. The town has religious and strategic importance to Armenians, containing a number of churches, including [[Ghazanchetsots Cathedral]] and [[Kanach Zham]], and serving (along with the [[Lachin corridor]] to the west) as a land link to [[Armenia]]. There are differing accounts as to exactly when the Armenian settlement evolved into a town. According to some sources, the town of Shusha was founded in 1752 by [[Panah Ali Khan]]. From the mid-18th century to 1822, Shusha was the capital of the [[Karabakh Khanate]]. The town became one of the cultural centers of the [[South Caucasus]] after the [[Russo-Persian Wars|Russian conquest of the Caucasus region]] from [[Qajar Iran]] in the first half of the 19th century. Over the course of the 19th century, it became a city and a home to many Armenian and Azeri intellectuals, poets, writers and especially, musicians (including Azeri [[ashik]]s, [[mugham]] singers, [[Komuz|kobuz]] players). Throughout modern history, the city mainly fostered a mixed Armenian–Azerbaijani population. The first available demographic information about the city in 1823 suggest that the city had an Azerbaijani majority. However, the number of Armenian inhabitants of the city steadily grew over time to constitute a majority of the city's population until the [[Shusha massacre|massacre and destruction of the Armenian half of the city]] in 1920 by [[Azerbaijanis|Azerbaijani]] forces, which resulted in the death or expulsion of the [[Armenians|Armenian]] part of the population—up to 20,000 people. After the [[Battle of Shusha (1992)|capture of Shusha]] in 1992 by Armenian forces during [[First Nagorno-Karabakh War]], the city's Azerbaijani population was expelled. According to journalist [[Thomas de Waal]]'s reckoning during a visit in 2000, it was 80% ruined. Between May 1992 and November 2020, Shusha was under the ''[[de facto]]'' control of the [[Political status of Nagorno-Karabakh|self-proclaimed]] [[Republic of Artsakh]] and administered as the centre of its [[Shushi Province]]. On 8 November 2020, Azerbaijani forces retook the city during the [[2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War]] following a [[Battle of Shusha (2020)|three-day long battle]]. The Armenian population of the city was expelled,<sup class="noprint Inline-Template Template-Fact" style="white-space:nowrap;">[<i>[[Wikipedia:Citation needed|<span title="This claim needs references to reliable sources. (September 2021)">citation needed</span>]]</i>]</sup> with multiple reports that the Armenian cultural heritage of the city was being destroyed. + '''Shusha''' or '''Shushi''' is a city in [[Azerbaijan]], in the region of [[Nagorno-Karabakh]]. Situated at an altitude of 1,400–1,800 metres (4,600–5,900 ft) in the [[Karabakh]] mountains, the city was a mountain resort in the [[Soviet Union|Soviet era]]. There are differing accounts regarding the town's origins. Most sources date Shusha's establishment to 1752, attributing this to [[Panah Ali Khan]], founder of the [[Karabakh Khanate]]. Panah Ali chose the site on the advice of his ally Shahnazar, the local Armenian prince (<span title="Armenian-language text"><i lang="hy">[[melik]]</i></span>) of [[Melikdoms of Karabakh#Autonomy|Varanda]], who may have assisted in its construction in order to gain an advantage against the neighbouring princes. In these accounts, the name originated from a nearby Armenian village called Shosh or Shushikent. Conversely, some sources describe Shusha as being the center of the self-governing Melikdoms of Karabakh in the 1720s, and others claim the plateau was already the site of an "ancient" Armenian fortification which was transferred to, or seized by, Panah Ali Khan. From the mid-18th century to 1822, Shusha was the capital of the Karabakh Khanate. The town became one of the cultural centers of the [[South Caucasus]] after the [[Russo-Persian Wars|Russian conquest of the Caucasus region]] from [[Qajar Iran]] in the first half of the 19th century. Over the course of the 19th century, the town grew in size to become a city, and was home to many Armenian and Azeri intellectuals, poets, writers and musicians (including Azeri [[ashik]]s, [[mugham]] singers and [[Komuz|kobuz]] players). The town has religious, cultural and strategic importance to both groups. Shusha is often considered the cradle of Azerbaijan's music and poetry, and one of the leading centres of the [[Culture of Azerbaijan|Azerbaijani culture]]. Shusha also contains a number of [[Armenian Apostolic Church|Armenian Apostolic]] churches, including [[Ghazanchetsots Cathedral]] and [[Kanach Zham]], and serves as a land link between Nagorno-Karabakh and [[Armenia]], via the [[Lachin corridor]] to the west. Throughout modern history, the city fostered a mixed Armenian–Azerbaijani population. The first available demographic information about the city in 1823 suggests the city had an Azerbaijani majority. However, the number of Armenian inhabitants of the city steadily grew over time to constitute a majority of the city's population until the [[Shusha massacre]] in 1920, in which the Armenian half of the city was destroyed by [[Azerbaijanis|Azerbaijani]] forces, resulting in the death or expulsion of the [[Armenians|Armenian]] population, up to 20,000 people. After the [[Battle of Shusha (1992)|capture of Shusha]] in 1992 by Armenian forces during [[First Nagorno-Karabakh War]], the city's Azerbaijani population was expelled. According to journalist [[Thomas de Waal]]'s reckoning during a visit in 2000, it was 80% ruined. Between May 1992 and November 2020, Shusha was under the ''[[de facto]]'' control of the [[Political status of Nagorno-Karabakh|self-proclaimed]] [[Republic of Artsakh]] and administered as the centre of its [[Shushi Province]]. On 8 November 2020, Azerbaijani forces retook the city during the [[2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War]] following a [[Battle of Shusha (2020)|three-day long battle]]. The Armenian population of the city fled, and multiple reports emerged that the Armenian cultural heritage of the city was being destroyed.

Jr8825 • Talk 13:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support Anton's proposed re-write. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged: are you referring to my proposal above, or Anton's more general proposal? Jr8825 • Talk 14:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Jr8825. let me, pls, to note some issues for your proposed version. Accually, as you note, there is no any neutral sources reg Shusha city(not fortress) before 18 centery, so it's correct to avoid using the name "Shushi" as city or fortress earlier in the article. And reg "..The Armenian population of the city was expelled,[citation needed] with multiple reports that the Armenian cultural heritage of the city was being destroyed" and 4 citations. Three of them are Armenian sources (websites). The last one is not Armenian(it's online news site), but the information is based on Armenian Users comments in Twitter. At least, this information should be noted as "according to Armenian sources", because nobody else confirm this information. Do you think that these sources from internet really relieble ones to insert it? As regards to Mkrtchan it's another subject. There is some of his articles in Armenian Soviet Encyclopedi and basing on it he's historian now. But he's graduated Pedagogic Institute, and he's not historian to his education. --Aydin mirza (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Hey look who's back, exciting times! Am I seeing double tho? Hmmm, so strange. Maybe someone has memory problems, in any case I should assume good faith right? Or this is what wikipedians call the WP:PACT time? A gentle reminder to Aydin himself and others who also might find this useful, so we don't dive into similar POV focused discussions:

Shahen Mkrtchyan is in fact historian, he's listed as one in Armenian National Library. Quote:

• SHAHEN MKRTCHYAN (1936-2020), historian, cultural figure, Director of the Nagorno Karabakh Regional State Historical-Geographical Museum (1965-1972), Director of the Scientific Museum of the History Museum of Armenia, Branch of the National Gallery of Armenia

And he was not like a unilateral partisan figure either, he was published in Baku. Quote:

• Лит.: Мкртчян Ш. М., Нагорно - Карабахская автономная область. Путеводитель, Баку, 1970 (translation – Lit .: Mkrtchyan Sh. M., Nagorno - Karabakh Autonomous Region. Guide, Baku, 1970)

He has published academic works, and is cited by international authors.

Now all of this was from a discussion roughly 2-3 months. Not sure if Aydin has some serious memory issues or thinks that wikipedians wouldn't notice his bizzilion timed attempt at besmirching Mkrtchyan as “non historian” [10], [11], [12], even after he was shown all the info above already. No one finds this interesting, anyone else? @Jr8825 should find this interesting too as they were also explaining the same to Aydin in previous discussions I linked here not so long ago. Maybe WP:AA isn't something you should edit in Aydin, your conflict of interest is quite showing in every discussion, and it's oozing uncomfortably I might add, to the point of you repeating the same things over and over again in some desperate hopes that it'll just pass on somehow, and nobody would notice.

I'll give my thoughts sometime later about your suggestions @Jr8825, thanks for the work regardless. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Shahen Mkrtchyan should not be used in this article. He is not third party, and moreover, he is a prominent Armenian nationalist, one of the separatist activists in Nagorno-Karabakh. Quote: He was one of the organizers of the Artsakh movement, it is no coincidence that his works concerned not only the history and culture of Artsakh, but also the liberation struggle of the Artsakh people for freedom and independence. This person wrote such works as "Nagorno-Karabakh: Anatomy of the Genocide Committed by Azerbaijan: (1920-1988)", published in Stepanakert in 2003. Clearly a very partisan author who cannot be trusted for neutrality. Grandmaster 12:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

You're going to need to provide a reliable source referring to Mkrtchyan as a "prominent Armenian nationalist". He's a well respected historian and awarded historian, and also a native of Artsakh. Mkrtchyan spent his entire career researching the history of Artsakh. He's infinitely more credible than a British journalist who majored in Russian literature. --Steverci (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Grandmaster: the only real alternative is "the site of an "ancient" fortress within..." (with quotes marks, which is supported by sources other than Mkrtchyan) in place of "the site of a medieval fortress within...". I prefer "medieval" because I think "ancient" could imply that it's even older, so in that way I think "medieval" is more likely to be giving readers an accurate impression. I don't object to use the more broadly sourced "ancient", though, if others object to "medieval". Jr8825 • Talk 13:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

When Armenian authors say that Shusha was mentioned in some chronicle before 1752, they forget to add that those sources mention the village of Shusha. There is indeed a village of Shusha, Shosh in Armenian and Shusha-kend (village) in Azerbaijani, which is much older than the town and the fortress. And contemporary chronicles all mention that the fortress was built on an empty spot that was used as a pasture by inhabitants of Shusha village. When Russian empire took over the region, they commissioned local historians to write history of Karabakh. There were 5 such works, so called Karabakh-nameh, 3 by Azerbaijani, and 2 by Armenian authors. They all say the same thing, that the city was founded in 1752. I will quote some of them.

Mirza Adigozal bey (translation from Russian):

Panakh Khan consulted with Melik-Shakhnazar. On the advice and direction of the latter, Panakh Khan founded the city of Shusha. And since there were no flowing waters and springs in the area (where the city was to be founded), several test wells were dug. After it became possible to get water from these wells, in 1170 the foundation of the future city of Shusha was laid. The inhabitants of Shah-bulag and several villages were resettled here. Each family was assigned a place to live. After the people relocated and settled in a new place, Panah Khan built spacious buildings and high palaces for his family. Skilled craftsmen, architects and prominent specialists started building the fortress walls and towers, the remains of which have survived to this day. [13]

Mirza Jamal Javanshir:

They shared [their] considerations with Melik Shakhnazar bey, who has always been their well-wisher. The question of the construction of the Shusha fortress was resolved on his advice and instructions. To inspect the area of ​​the [future] fortress, [the khan] sent several experienced and knowledgeable people from among his entourage. There was no running water inside this fortress, except for two or three small springs, which could not meet the needs of a large crowd of people and residents of the fortress. Therefore, they [the khan's messengers] dug wells in several places where, in their opinion, there could be water, and found that in many [other] places [also] it is possible to dig wells and get water. They told Panah khan about everything, who was delighted about it. He went there together with several of his entourage and, having examined [the area], proceeded to build the fortress. In 1170 Muslim year, corresponding to 1754 (1170 A.H. corresponds to 1756/1757) Christian, he resettled [here] all the rayats living in the Shahbulagy fortress, as well as families of noble people, meliks, clerks and elders from the Ilats and some villages and provided them with a place to live inside the fortress. Before that, there were no dwellings here. This place was arable land and pasture that belonged to the inhabitants of Shushikend, located six miles east of the fortress. After settling the people, determining for everyone, especially for themselves, [sites for] houses and dwellings, he, together with skilled craftsmen and provident karguzars (Karguzar - an official, manager of affairs), built the walls of the fortress, which are now destroyed and their traces remain only in some places. [14]

Mirza Yusuf Nersesov (Armenian chronicler):

After some searches, by Melik Shahnazar's indication and advice they found the place of Shushi, a big town now. Panah Khan went there, walked about and examined its environs with his own eyes and praised it in every aspect. Since the area lacked rivers, he ordered to dig wells at several spots and a lot of water sprang out. In the Asad of 1765/1171 (85a) of Christian and Moslem chronology he founded the town of Shushi. [15]

Russian imperial Vasily Potto, Кавказская война. Том 2. Ермоловское время:

"...in 1752 he built the unassailable fortress of Shusha and transferred his residence there. There is still an inscription on the wall of the town mosque, showing that the town and fortress were founded by Panakh-khan in 1167 Hijri year" ("...в 1752 году он построил неприступную шушинскую крепость и перенес туда свою резиденцию. На стенах городской мечети и поныне сохранилась надпись, свидетельствующая, что город и крепость основаны Пана-ханом в 1167 году Геджры").

E.J. Brill's First Encyclopaedia of Islam

Its chiefs were called from father to son alternately Panah and Ibrahim Kbalil; it was Panah III who built Shusha in 1165 (1752) and gave It the name of Panah-abad, whence the name panah-abadi given to the coins which he struck there.

Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary

Shusha was founded in 1752 by Panakh-Ali-bek and got its name from the village of Shushikent, located not far away and existing to this day. Until 1823 it was the capital of the Karabakh Khanate. [16]

Regarding peer-reviewed modern scholarship, the top expert on Nagorno-Karabakh is Thomas de Waal. This is from Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War:

The history of Shusha contains the best and worst of Nagorny Karabakh. It is a story of joint prosperity and dynamism. But it has ended with the gene of nihilism in both communities triumphant, destroying both each other's achievements and their own. ln a sense, the ruins of Shusha are a testament to both sides' refusal to accommodate each other 's histories. The town's history begins in the 1740s, when Panakh Khan, leader of the Javanshir dynasty in Azerbaijan, made a bid to be the ruler of Karabakh. The Persians and the Ottomans were in retreat, and the Russians had not yet arrived in the Caucasus. Panakh Khan built a series of fortresses to establish himself as the khan of Karabakh. He cemented his position by a marriage alliance with one of the five Armenian meliks, or princes, Shakhnazar of Varanda. In 1750, Panakh Khan built a fortress in Shusha. The cliffs on the southern side provided a natural defense and only two gates were needed in the new city walls.

There are more sources, but as we can see from the above, the traditional and generally accepted version is that Shusha town did not exist before 1750-52. We must give preference to the majority view. Grandmaster 13:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I'm generally fine with the proposal, except the sentence The plateau is recorded as being the site of a medieval fortress within the Armenian Principality of Varanda. This is a controversial claim advanced only by a handful of sources, with no wider support among historians in general. To my knowledge, neither does archaeology support this - there are no surviving remains of the medieval fortress on the plateau or anything for that matter. If that claim is dropped, I'd support the proposed lead. Brandmeister^talk 14:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

  I agree with Brandmeister. In my view, the most problematic is the statement The plateau is recorded as being the site of a medieval fortress within the Armenian Principality of Varanda. There are differing accounts as to when the town was established. It has been described as one of the two main Armenian settlements in the Transcaucasus, and the center of the self-governing Melikdoms of Karabakh in the 1720s. It is clearly a minority view, and it cannot be given equal weight with generally accepted view or presented as a fact. Grandmaster 14:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Brandmeister: to clarify, I'm not at all wedded to any particular sentence and I have no objection to removing that one. I was simply trying to walk a tightrope to balance both narratives based on the sources that have been brought up on this talk page, and as I noted above I already had reservations about the strength of that claim anyway. Jr8825 • Talk 15:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

  Based on the range of sources which Grandmaster has collected above, which I think demonstrate even more clearly the weight behind the 1752 date, how about this wording for the start of the second lead para.: There are differing accounts as to when the town was established. A range of sources place Shusha's founding in 1752, and most commonly attribute this to Panah Ali Khan; some Armenian sources claim the town was established by an Armenian prince. Conversely, Shusha has been described as the center of the self-governing Melikdoms of Karabakh in the 1720s. (This would utilise the same sources as the above proposal). Jr8825 • Talk 15:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

  This is better. However another problem with the quote from Edward Walker is that he appears to be the only one to claim that "Shusha was the center of a self-governing Armenian principality in the 1720s". Modern Armenian sources claim that Shusha existed already in medieval times. Grandmaster 15:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, WP:WEIGHT rather clearly suggests the 18th century foundation version which should be mentioned first. It's endorsed particularly by some major encyclopedias mentioned above. Brandmeister^talk 15:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Also modern scholarship similar to Edward Walker's work: Tim Potier. Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia: A Legal Appraisal. Published by Brill: [17]

During the 17th century and the first half of the 18th century, Karabakh was the arena for continuous wars between Iran and Turkey. Panakh Ali-khan founded the Karabakh Khanate in the mid-18th century. To defend it, in the 1750s, he built the Panakhabad fortress (subsequently named Shusha, after a nearby village), which became the capital of the khanate.

Grandmaster 16:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose The town being built before the 1750s has stronger due weight.

It's impossible for it to be founded in the 1750s because it is described in Kehva Chelebi's 1725 report:

… The nearest Armenian stronghold … was Shushi. Shushi is four days' distance from Shemakhi. Armed Armenians under the command of Avan Yuzbashi guard it. After meeting with the Armenian leaders, including the Patriarch, they returned to Derbent via Shemakhi. Rocky mountains surround the town of Shushi. The number of the armed Armenians has not been determined. There are rumors that the Armenians have defeated the Turks in a number of skirmishes in Karabagh …

And there are already multiple third party sources already in the article confirming the town already existed:

In his 1769 letter to Russian diplomat Count P. Panin, the Georgian king Erekle II wrote that "there was an ancient fortress which was conquered, through deceit, by one man from the Muslim Jevanshir tribe." The same information about the 'ancient' fortress is confirmed by the Russian Field Marshal Alexander Suvorov in his letter to Prince Grigory Potemkin. Suvorov writes that the Armenian prince Melik Shahnazar of Varanda surrendered his fortress Shushikala to "certain Panah", whom he calls "chief of an unimportant part of nomadic Muslims living near the Karabakh borders." When discussing Karabakh and Shusha in the 18th century, the Russian diplomat and historian S. M. Bronevskiy wrote in his Historical Notes that Shusha fortress was a possession of the Melik-Shahnazarian clan, having been given to Panah Ali Khan in return for aid against the other Armenian meliks of Karabakh. Russian historian P. G. Butkov (1775–1857) writes that "Shushi village" was given to Panah Ali Khan by the Melik-Shahnazarian prince after they entered into an alliance, and that Panah Ali Khan fortified the village. Joseph Wolff, during his mission in the Middle East, visited "Shushee, in the province of Carabagh, in Armenia Major".

Nersesov is not an Armenian source, he is obviously an assimilated Iranian. Potto just says a fortress was built, and an inscription claims that was the founding of the town. We already know Azeris want to ignore all history of the town before they began settling in it, but we also already know this is UNDUE. Same with Edward Walker, who differentiates the fortress and town. de Waal has been criticized countless times for his subtle pro-Azeri bias. He's not a top expert in anything, except maybe Twitter blogging. --Steverci (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Chelebi was clearly referring to the village of Shusha, which existed before the town. But again WP:WEIGHT. You can see from the number of sources that I quoted that the vast majority of sources attributes foundation of Shusha to Panah Ali khan in 1752. Nersesov was an Armenian, check his biography here, and so was Raffi, who wrote:

Shahnazar needed an ally, and he found one ready to his hand in the Jevanshir. Panah advised him to build another fort for greater security, choosing the site on Shahnazar's private property, and the two constructed a fort on the banks of the river Karkar as quickly as they could in the intervals of fighting the four Meliks. Shahnazar laid the foundation stone, and the fortress was completed in 1752, the people of the village of Shoshi were brought to live there, and it was named Shoshi or Shushi fortress. Panah had now succeded in establishing himself in the heart of Karabagh, to carry out his infamous plots for breaking up the league of the Meliks, with the aid of his ally, the traitor and villain, Shahnazar of Varranda. [18]

De Waal is considered top expert on Karabakh. His work is praised by international scholarly community, and received no serious critisism outside of Armenia. I can cite many more sources about foundation of the city in 1752. It is generally accpeted version, and the article must reflect that, according to Wikipedia rules. Grandmaster 08:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I think Walker should not be used in the lead, as other modern sources such as de Waal and Potier do not agree with his version, and Walker is a minority view, because no other source says that Shusha was a center of a principality in 1720. I propose the following rewrite:

It is widely accepted that Shusha was founded as a fortress in 1752 by Panah Ali Khan. However some sources claim that the town existed before.

Or something similar. According to the rules, we must properly attribute majority and minority views in accordance with their weight. And it is quite obvious that vast majority of sources support 1752 foundation by Panah Ali Khan. Grandmaster 08:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The crux of the matter when it comes to a subject like this is who has access to sources closest to the subject matter? Thomas de Waal is by no stretch of the imagination an expert on the early modern urban history of the South Caucasus. His political analysis and interviews are what truly stand out in his book, but when it comes to the pre-1923 history of the region he's at the mercy of what actual scholars have written before him. Case in point: He never set out to archives to uncover documents that would reveal more about Shushi's founding nor participated in archaeological digs to gain first-hand knowledge of the town itself. It's rather breathtaking how his work over the past 20 years has come to be considered the most authoritative political and historical study in the region whereas in reality Black Garden is not a scholarly work: it's rather a popular history written in very eloquent prose by someone who at the time was a journalist and who himself admitted the debt he owed to other scholars whose work allowed him to dip into medieval, architectural, and other sub-fields. Ohannes Geukjian, Vicken Cheterian, Arsene Saporov, Lori Khatchadourian (Cornell) -- these are serious academics with many peer-reviewed articles under their belts and yet whose works, remarkably, are almost never cited on these pages. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 10:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

De Waal did study the history of the region, and consulted experts on this subject. If we refer to someone like Edward Walker, who only makes a passing remark on the subject, to make claims about history of the town, then why not refer to de Waal, who is a much more respected authority on the subject? Potier is also as good as Walker. Others mentioned by you are certainly not third party. But in general, the main rule that applies here is WP:Weight. It is quite obvious that it is generally accepted by reliable third party sources that the city was founded in 1752 by Panah Ali Khan. We cannot give the minority view an equal weight with the majority view. But the present version of the lead does not even present the majority view, let alone give it a proper weight. How is that even possible? Grandmaster 14:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Btw, Arsene Saparov, mentioned by you, also says that Shusha was founded by Panah Ali Khan.

But an opportunity for Panah emerged when, as a result of a feud between the Armenian meliks, one of them sought help against his rivals by inviting Panah to build a fortress at Shusha in the mountains of Karabakh in 1750. At around this time Panakh Khan proclamed himself khan of Karabakh and was confirmed by Nader's descendant.

Arsene Saparov. From Conflict to Autonomy in the Caucasus: The Soviet Union and the Making of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorno Karabakh. 2014

That is pretty much what everybody says, with minor exception. Grandmaster 15:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) De Waal is still a journalist by education. He's not a historian or some other sort of specialist (e.g. Caucasologist, Middle Eastern Studies scholar, Iranologist, political scientist, Turkologist, Armenian Studies scholar, Russian Studies scholar, etc.). De Waal's works should therefore be dealt with as such, and yes, that does include WP:DUE weight and due attribution. His works are inferior compared to those written by western specialists with degrees. Edward Walker at least has degrees in political science and international studies. Tim Potier has a PhD in Law; citing his works for anything but law-related content is not good editing. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Saparov is a good source for the topic area and I recommend users citing his works (same goes for Laurence Broers). - LouisAragon (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. It's remarkable that after more than a decade "third party" in this context is still a misabused label come to mean by some as "non-Armenian/non-Azerbaijani." You can be of either ethnic heritage and still produce sound scholarly material. Geukjian, Cheterian, Saporov, and Khatchadourian are each experts in their field (political science, Soviet history, architecture, etc.) not because of their ethnic lineage or countries of residence, but their competence (Saporov, by the way, works on modern and Soviet history) Like LouisAragon says, De Waal is a journalist and now a political analyst, but in this case he doesn't have the final say on matters relating to eighteenth-century architecture and urban history. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - Agree with the points raised above by Steverci and MarshallBagramyan, the town being built before the 1750s indeed has strong weight. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment all relieble encyclopedic publishers note Shusha as "the city was built by Panakh khan in the middle of 18century". Another versions are also noted in any case. No doubt that majority sources (mid 18 century) is strong weight, because they're encyclopedi, neutral. As to Th.Waal, it could be accepted that he's not historian, but jurnalist. But in this case, let me again and again back to Sh.Mkrtchan, who is not historian also (the tourist guidance is not argument. Acually the editions no need historians assistence to arrange the brochure for tourists). Aydin mirza (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I came across this topic from WP:ANI. This dispute is much ado over nothing — we cannot consider 100 year old sources and recent scholarship in the same tier. If there are modern scholars, who explicitly claim that the town was estb. by Armenians, provide them. Armenians having settlements in the plateau etc. mean zilch. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

  Did you even follow the discussion so far or are you just here to edit-war? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

  I think that you might benefit from reading WP:NPA. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Moving forward: revised proposal

I think this discussion above has been helpful in gathering the sources in one place. The next stage is to build on what we have and create a well-sourced compromise text. I've revised my intial rough draft above to more closely follow the sources that have since been brought up. You can find the new text in the same place (the collapsed green section – direct link). Is this an acceptable compromise version? Does it reflect the sources accurately? (I've added more ref quotes and shuffled some inline cites around, so they hopefully support the text more closely.) Does it reasonably reflect the weight of sources? Pinging main discussion participants: @ZaniGiovanni, MarshallBagramyan, LouisAragon, Grandmaster, Brandmeister, Steverci, and Laurel Lodged: Jr8825 • Talk 18:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• Reject - Uses multiple sources, older than a century. I do not see an absence of modern scholarship to bend over backwards and accommodate fringe POVs. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

  Why is Edward Walker, with a background in IR, even considered to be a reliable source on the history of contested territories? [I have the same feelings for De Waal, who writes pop histories with a profound lack of academic rigor.]

  I suggest that everybody in this dispute search for scholarship produced by credible academic historians and read WP:FALSEBALANCE. And, we cannot interpret hundred year old sources for ourselves to dispute a narrative. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

  Panah brought Melik Shahnazar into his service and installed himself in the melik's domain of Varanda, forcing him to cede the fortress of Shosh, the future city of Shushi or Shusha.
  — The Caucasian Knot: The History & Geopolitics of Nagorno-Karabagh. ed: Levon Chorbajian, Patrick Donabédian, and Claude Mutafian. 1994. p. 74

  Donabédian is a professor of Archeology at Aix-Marseille University and has led archaeological missions in Armenia. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

  Was there some fort in or around where the current town stands? Very likely, yes. Does a fort make a city? No. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: the revised proposal suggests there wasn't a city prior to 1752, and I think it largely reflects Donabédian's statement, are you definitely reading the right text? I'm also concerned about false balance, and perhaps the proposed text needs to focus on the 1752 founding date in an even stronger way – it's a case of getting the due weight right, why I invited this discussion. I'd also note that my proposal minimises the alleged medieval Armenian "city" to a greater extent than the previous long-standing version of the lead, and the current lead, too.

I've changed my view about Walker over the course of the thread, as his claim does seem to contradict most other sources, which is why I've consequently cut down the space given to his statements in this revised proposal. Perhaps this can be further emphasised by removing "There are differing accounts regarding the town's origins", so the paragraph opens with "Most sources...". I'm not yet convinced that the weight balance is strong enough to entirely exclude him, as he is, after all, a recent, reliably published source and a scholar with regional knowledge, even if his expertise is IR rather than history. What has he read that caused him to make such a confident statement? Are there more sources which echo that view? If you do know of other sources such as Donabédian, please put them forward and make suggestions, rather than suggesting there's a deliberate absence of modern scholarship – I've said pretty clearly this isn't my area of expertise, and I'm trying to determine the weight of sources as I go along reading them. Perhaps you could make a constructive suggestion for rewording it, rather than blocking my attempt to take something positive from the above, long-winded discussion?

I'd appreciate it if you could provide a list of the modern scholarship by academic historians on the topic, but I strongly suspect there's not that much – which is why we're having to rely on a combination of sources: tertiary encyclopedias, modern secondary-source regional overviews and a mix of historic secondary- and primary-source documents. WP:PRIMARY sources are not "banned" – although they're definitely not ideal sources, they still have a role to play in the absence of secondary source alternatives, if used carefully and appropriately. This is particularly with medieval and earlier history, where any secondary sources will also be reliant on the same primary sources unless someone undertakes an archaeological dig at a specific site (unless Donabédian has excavated at Shusha, he is relying on the same documentary evidence as everyone else). While some of the sources used here are old, age isn't a definitive indication of unreliability – I'm not convinced the history of Shusha is a field which has undergone substantial reevaluation in recent decades. Jr8825 • Talk 19:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

This is particularly with medieval and earlier history, where any secondary sources will also be reliant on the same primary sources. We, as laymen, cannot critically evaluate primary sources and situate them in context. Esp. when they arise of acrimonious areas like these with every claim having an (apparently valid) counter-claim.

What has he read that caused him to make such a confident statement? We are not mind-readers. Scholars make all sorts of unintentional but dubious statements on particular facts which are not very integral to their work. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Donabédian may be reliable but the source TrangaBellam is citing is not. The Caucasian Knot has received quite negative peer reviews, in part for its extremely partisan presentation of events [19]. Furthermore, the book is published by ZED Books, a non-academic publishing company, which has been described as an outlet for expressing "marginal" and "radical" views (see Lena Khor. Human Rights Discourse in a Global Network: Books Beyond Borders. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2013, pp. 235–236). Parishan (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

They accuse the book of being too pro-Armenian. And, we are using it to negate a fringe pro-Armenian pov. Hardly any issues: I would not have cited this work if the viewpoint, under question, was pro-Azeri.

Zed is a reliable publisher and one academic denigrating it means nothing. Please raise a thread at WP:RSN if you gather evidence of multiple scholars finding the publisher to be unreliable. I can find several acclaimed chair-proffesors being published by Zed. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I think Jr8825's proposal is generally good. We can use it as a basis and improve it further by consensus at talk. Regarding modern scholarship on Shusha, it is almost non-existent. Modern authors simply refer to what is known from historical sources. The foremost sources on history of Karabakh khanate and Shusha are considered chronicles by Mirza Jamal Javanshir, Mirza Adigezal bek and to lesser extent Mirza Yusuf Nersesov. We simply cannot ignore these major sources, which are the cornerstones of historical research on Karabakh. Regarding Donabedian, Chorbaijan, etc, it is not the best source. It is more of nationalist type scholarship, plus Donabedian himself is an art historian. As I understand, he mixes the village of Shosh/Shushakend with the city of Shusha. But then again, as TrangaBellam noted, a fort is not the same thing as a city. Arsen Saparov is a better source, I quoted him above. Encyclopedia of Islam is the best scholarly source, the later versions of 1970 and 1993 contain the same information as I quoted above. Also, there is this source:

Shusha. Regional center in the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan. The town was founded in 1756-7 when the Karabakh potentate Panah 'Ali Khan built a fortress on a rocky area surrounded by the mountain streams Dashalty and Khalfali-chay. The eponymous fortress Panakhabad was later renamed Kala or Shusha-qalasy and finally Shusha. Situated in the strategic and economic center of Karabakh, it became the capital of the Karabakh khanate. The town was surrounded by stone walls with round towers protecting the gates. The khan and his court lived in a rectangular citadel surrounded by bazaars, a Friday Mosque and residential quarters.

Grove Encyclopedia of Islamic Art and Architecture. Oxford University Press. 2009

Also, I agree that ""There are differing accounts regarding the town's origins"" should be removed, so the paragraph opens with ""Most sources..."" It makes more sense without that line. Grandmaster 21:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I've removed that sentence as I agree it could suggest there's less acceptance of the 1750s than there appears to be. Jr8825 • Talk 21:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I've temporarily put Jr8825's lead as it's still better than the previous one, further changes could be agreed here, I think. By the way, the Russian equivalent of Shusha fortress has a detailed section on dating, ru:Шушинская крепость#Вопрос датировки крепости. It shows that nearly all sources, even the Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia, agree on the 1750s dating of the fortress. Brandmeister^talk 19:35, 22 September 2021(UTC)

@Jr8825: Is there reasonable cause to say that "most sources" date Shushi/Shusha's founding as a "city" from the 1750s and onward, that it was then considered to be more than a fortress, with adjoining civilian settlements - which may very likely have also been the case of a previous Armenian fortress at the same site beforehand? From another point of view, the locality would be considered to be an actual full-blooded "city" much further ahead in time. AntonSamuel (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I understand your question, but the 1750s date does appear to be agreed upon by the majority of sources as the founding of the modern town (as can be seen from above). Many of these sources say there was an Armenian population/village nearby before this date. There may have been an earlier fortification, and some Armenian sources are more explicit about this, but my current impression is that, overall, most sources seem to imply that Panah Ali built what was effectively a new fortress in 1752. There are editors here who are more familiar with the source than me, though. Jr8825 • Talk 22:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jr8825: The current wording of your proposal (and the current version of the page) implies that from the 1750s and onward, Shushi/Shusha was now considered to be a city/town/settlement and not just a fortress. If you look at the history section of the page, the late 1700s were pretty stormy for the locality with numerous battles, sieges and most mentions of the locality being with regard to its nature as a stronghold or fortress. Few fortresses beyond the modern world have been able to exist without some immediate adjoining civilian settlement and there is plenty of sourced material with regard to the importance and significance of the site for the local Armenian principality - which is what I wanted to convey in my previous statement. I would say that the section regarding the founding of the town needs to be amended in order to be considered to be neutral and factual with regard to the sources used. AntonSamuel (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: I haven't seen many sources which demonstrate the importance and significance of the site for the local Armenian principality pre-1750s, could you please link/quote some more? Steverci mentioned some primary Russian sources which support the idea there the fortress wasn't built from scratch in the 1750s, and this is reflected in the text's sentence "others claim the plateau was already the site of an "ancient" Armenian fortification", which is supported by cites to Chelebi (1725) and Ashkharhin (1863). Aside from the fact that Parishan says the Chelebi translation is inaccurate – in which case that cite should be removed (the Ashkharhin seems OK?) – none of these sources give any details about the fortress's history before it came under the control of Panah Ali. The only two sources I've seen so far which do discuss earlier history are Walker and Mkrtchyan. Walker is the stronger source, and is still given space in the new text ("some sources describe Shusha as being the center of the self-governing melikdoms of Karabakh in the 1720s" – although other editors here are arguing he's being given too much space, as he seems to be an outlier (most tertiary sources point towards the 1750s) and his expertise is politics rather than history. Then there's Mkrtchyan, who wrote that the fortress was medieval. As I mentioned above, the text mentions the possibility that there was "already" an "ancient Armenian fortification" – I don't see how we can give any more weight to this unless there are more sources for it – again, could you link/name some to support your argument this is the case? Regardless of Mkrtchyan's reputation as a scholar within Armenia, he is obviously a well-known activist on the topic, so other editors' objections to using him as the sole source for statements is entirely reasonable. If other sources corroborate his claims then I'd be OK using him for those. Also pinging @Kevo327: – this is your opportunity/invitation to bring sources to the table to demonstrate weight for pre-1750s history. Are we missing sources? Jr8825 • Talk 00:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I checked the links provided by Parishan, and indeed Chelebi mentions the "village of Shosh" (деревня Шоша), which modern researchers identify with the village of Shosh/Shushakend. So Chelebi is not an appropriate source for the claim. Grandmaster 14:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

@Grandmaster and Parishan: could you offer a translation of the passage "Потом паки как патриархи, так и юзбаши собрались в помянутю /л. 24/ ж деревню Шошу и из оной ево отправили. И ехал он оттуда паки на Шемаху и Дербень и крепость Святаго Креста. Оная деревня Шоша окружена каменными горами. / Войска их армянского, конницы и пехоты, многое число [во] оружейного только подлинно сказать, сколько всего войска, не может."? I'm using Google Translate, and it I'm unsure whether this text implies the village had a large garrison? (In which case, might that support the idea that Shosh was a relatively important site or fortification, as Walker suggests)? Or is it not specifying the location of the garrison, or saying it was located somewhere else? Also, is the "the fortress of the Holy Cross" clearly a different place? Thanks in advance, Jr8825 • Talk 14:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

My translation: Then again both the patriarchs and the yuzbashi gathered in the aforementioned village of Shosha and from there they sent him. And he rode from there again to Shemakha and Derbent and the fortress of the Holy Cross. That village of Shosha is surrounded by stone mountains. Their Armenian troops, armed cavalry and infantry, are many, but he cannot say precisely how many in total troops there are. Russian fortress of the Holy Cross was located in Dagestan, and destroyed in 1735. There is an article about it in Russian wiki: [20] Armenians were informing Russians that they could mobilize a certain number of troops, and Chelebi was their messenger. The village of Shosh was used as a place of meeting of Armenian elders, but the source does not say that there was actually a garrison there. Grandmaster 14:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I've moved the source from two sentences it clearly doesn't support (those describing an "ancient fortress"). The same passage is still being used in the history section though, with a translation (supposedly) from Bournoutian's 2001 book Armenians and Russia, 1626-1796 : a documentary record of "деревня" as "town". This likely needs to be examined and removed as well, but I don't want to move too quickly on such a controversial topic. It does cause me to question the reliability of Bournoutian as a source, and he's also used as the sole source for other claims in that section (thhere are, however, other sources which call it an "ancient" fortress). Jr8825 • Talk 15:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The article contains a large quote from Chelebi, which clearly does not match the original Russian text. And even a modern Armenian scholar cited by Parishan confirms that the village in question was Shushikend. Pre-1750s foundation of Shusha appeared in modern Armenian sources after the Karabakh conflict started, especially in 1990s. They deliberately confuse the village of Shusha with the town, which are two different locations, even though not far from each other. And Bournoutian's translation of деревня as town is weird. I think modern Armenian and Azerbaijani sources, including those from diaspora, should be used with caution. Nationalist sentiment is evident in vast majority of them. Grandmaster 17:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The word "ancient" can simply mean old, it doesn't necessarily refer to antiquity. I don't see the need for scare quotes. --Steverci (talk) 03:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment. I apologise for joining the discussion late. I agree with the above suggestion that the claim of there existing a mediaeval fortress some time before 1752 is highly dubious and most likely is due to confusion with a nearby village with a similar name, and here is why.

The English translation of Kehva Chelebi's letter cited above by Steverci is inacurate (I do not know if Steverci copied it from somewhere or if it is their own translation). You can find the Russian translation of the letter as published in Сношения Петра Великаго с армянским народом (1897) by Gerasim Ezov, a Russian orientalist of Armenian origin here: [21]. Nowhere in the text does Chelebi mention a "fortress". He talks about a "village" he calls Shoshe, which, as it turns out, refers to the modern village of Shushikend, called Shosh in Armenian and located a few kilometres north of modern-day Shusha. Chelebi uses the word "village" (and not "fortress") multiple times. Meanwhile, Armenian historian Ashot Hovhannisian, himself a native of Shusha, in the foreword of Part I of Volume II of Армяно-русские отношения в первой трети XVIII века (1964), mentions explicitly (p. lxxxix) that what is referred to as "the village of Shusha" and described as Avan Yuzbashi's stronghold in Varanda, is in fact Shosh or "modern-day Shushikend": [22]

The same can be said of "Suvorov's letter", which (if it indeed exists) is a primary source, on top of everything not referenced by any secondary source except Mkrtchyan. How is it that a letter containing such a revolutionary statement has been ignored by all other sources, including (to my knowledge) the above-mentioned Армяно-русские отношения, a multi-volume compilation (each volume between 500 and 1000 pages) of Russian documents dealing with Armenian affairs and the most comprehensive reference of this sort to-date? Even so, who is to say that the settlement Suvorov referred to as Shushikala is Shusha and not Shushikend, as suggested by Hovhannisian for a similar mention?

As for Mkrtchyan, the fact that he is cited by Western authors does not automatically suggest that he is reliable. We do not know the contexts in which his works have been cited. Sources can be cited to be disagreed with or to illustrate a point of marginal relevance. He is not a peer-reviewed author, nor has he published in any reputable journals, even within the Soviet Union. The fact that one of this nearly twenty works, a travel guide of Nagorno-Karabakh, was published in Baku is barely surprising: for political reasons, such a guide could have hardly been published anywhere else in the Soviet era. I would not even get into the titles of some of his works, which border extremism, such as referring to Azerbaijan's control over Nagorno-Karabakh in 1920–1988 as "the anatomy of genocide". A clearly partisan source published in Armenia soon after the most heated phase of the Nagorno-Karabakh war, whose claims are not supported by any reliable source, cannot possibly outbalance the Encyclopaedia of Islam, Iranica, Brockhaus and Efron, the Great Soviet Encyclopaedia, and even some fellow Armenian authors, who make no mention of any prior settlement and agree that Panah Ali Khan built Shusha in 1752, or even be mentioned next to them as "an alternative opinion". Parishan (talk) 23:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Another notable source, which is considered one of the top sources on the history of Caucasus.

Спустя несколько времени Мелик Шах-Назар Веренский, враждовавший долгое время со своими соседями — другими меликами армянскими, просил Панах-хана построить крепость на месте нынешней Шуши (Панахабад) и избрать ее своим местопребыванием.

Some time later, Melik Shah-Nazar of Veren, who for a long time had been feuding with his neighbors, other Armenian meliks, asked Panakh Khan to build a fortress on the site of present-day Shusha (Panakhabad) and choose it as his residence. [23]

Abbas Qulu Aqa Bakikhanov. Golestan-e Eram

And then Encyclopedia Iranica:

In the second half of the century, Ebrāhīm Khan built a strong fortress in Shushi/Shusha, which was referred to, during his lifetime, as Panahabad (idem, p. 72). [24]

There’s a typo in the online version, as it says Ebrahim instead of Panah in the above sentence, but I think it is simply an error by the person who did the typing. The town was founded by Panah, of course, which is why it was initially called Panahabad. Btw, I think the lead should also reflect the original name of the town, Panahabad, attested by almost all the sources. Grandmaster 13:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I think that kind of detail (the name Panahabad) isn't important enough to topic as a whole to warrant inclusion in the lead summary. It's mentioned in the both the etymology and history sections. Shosh/Shushikent village is a slightly different case because it's likely to have lent its name to (or perhaps even borrowed its name from) the modern town, and may have been the predecessor settlement. Jr8825 • Talk 13:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

According to sources, the town of Panahabad indeed later took its name from Shosh/Shushikent village. Both the town and the village exist now. They are a few kilometers apart. According to Mirza Jamal Javanshir, who is considered the most important source on the history of Karabakh khanate, the town of Shusha was built in an empty place, where previously there were no buildings, and villagers from Shushikend used it as a pasture. Grandmaster 14:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

And another important historical chronicle, mentioned by Iranica as well:

В силу этих соображений, находя нынешнее место города Шуши как-раз соответствующим объясненным условиям, он, в 1754 году, основал в нем свою резиденцию, назвав её в честь свою Панах-абадом (**). Под этим-же названием начали чеканить в Шуше серебряную монету 15-копеечного достоинства. (**) Но впоследствии город этот стал называться Шуша-каласы, т. е. Шушинская крепость, приняв это название от армянской деревни по соседству, Шуши-кенды, т. е. Шушинская деревня.)

Ахмед-бек Джаваншир. О политическом существовании карабахского ханства (с 1747 по 1805 год).

Due to these considerations, finding the present place of the city of Shusha precisely meeting the aforementioned requirements, he, in 1754, founded his residence there, naming it after himself Panakh-abad (**). Under this same name, a 15-kopeck silver coin was minted in Shusha. (*But later this city was called Shusha-kalasy, i.e. Shusha fortress, taking this name from the nearby Armenian village, Shushi-kend, i.e. Shusha village.)

Ahmad bey Javanshir. On the Political Affairs of the Karabakh khanate in 1747–1805.

Grandmaster 15:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Iranica is not a good source. It has Armenian Genocide deniers like Hamid Algar as one of its top contributors. --Steverci (talk) 03:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

It's really funny that you (and some Armenian users) always use Armenian genocide as an argument even it's not related with topic. Iranica is considered one of the most reliable encyclopedias out there. View WP:RSP. If you're questioning it, take it to RS/N. NMW03 (talk) 11:35, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

No, what's funny is that there seems a new Azeri account in these discussions every day now, when there is a known Discord channel dedicated to brigading iVotes. --Steverci (talk) 03:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

The article in Iranica is written by George Bournoutian. If you think that he has anti-Armenian bias, I beg to differ. Quite the contrary, he pushes an Armenian POV, by referring to the region of Karabakh as "present-day de facto Nagorno-Karabakh Republic", etc. Grandmaster 12:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Reject Why does the lead now only highlight Panah while making no mention of Shahnazar? Even in the narrative of it being founded in 1750s, it was built on territory controlled by Shahnazar, and multiple contemporary Russian sources cited in the article. Seems like it was written to erase any mention of Armenians. I fixed the header to be more neutral. I've noticed that only Azeri sources use language attributing "building" or "founding" solely by Panah, while more non-partisan sources will use terms like "fortifying". Also, both the Soviet Encyclopedia and Encyclopaedia of Islam should not be considered deciding sources. The latter has an obvious bias, and the Soviets gave Shushi to the Azeris so they would naturally endorse Azeri historical negationism. --Steverci (talk) 03:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Your edit does not reflect what most of the sources say. You see that most sources, including encyclopedia of Islam, Iranica, Brokhaus, etc say that Panah Khan founded the city. Some also say that Shahnazar suggested a place. That is a generally accepted version. Please do not revert to you proposed version before consensus is reached here. I don't see how encyclopedia of Islam is unreliable. It is written by best Western experts. I cited here dozens of sources, primary, secondary and tertiary. They all say that Panah Khan founded the city, and Shahnazar was his advisor. You are trying to introduce a minority view, which is not line with WP:WEIGHT.Grandmaster 10:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Steverci: I don't understand how the leads makes "no mention of Shahnazar"? He's mentioned twice, and the possibility that he gave Panah advice on the location for a new fortress, and the possibility he already owned a fortress that came under the control of Panah, are both discussed. "Only Azeri sources use language attributing "building" or "founding" solely by Panah" – the sources Grandmaster presented in their above comment (timestamp 13:57, 19 September 2021) has convinced me this isn't the case, as it shows a broad range of sources which say Panah "founded" Shusha, including non-Soviet/non-Azeri ones. Jr8825 • Talk 10:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Potto differentiates between the town and a fortress. He confirms it was fortified, but only says an inscription claims it was founded. Islam and Brockhaus encyclopedias only provide brief summaries that omit Shahnazar entirely, but even Azeri sources acknowledge Shahnazar, so these should be considered not having an opinion. These encyclopedias should only be given secondary importance due to a lack of specialization in the subject anyway. Only Azeri sources (Adigozal bey and Javanshir) try to minimize Shahnazar's role as "offering advice". Raffi writes that it was actually Paneh who merely offered advice. And no, Nersesov is not an Armenian source, he converted to Islam and married an Azeri woman. This would be like calling Eisenhower a German general. On the other hand, Shahnazar being a co-founder is consistent with Butkov. And lets not forget Bronevskiy, Erekle, Suvorov, and Wolff state both the town and fortress already existed. --Steverci (talk) 03:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Nersesov

Potto says that Panah Khan built a fortress. It is true, it was originally a fortress, which grew bigger over the time. That is why it is called Shusha kalasi (i.e.fortress) to this day. Nersesov was an ethnic Armenian, he converted back to Christianity later in life. Many sources say that Shahnazar suggested a place for the new fortress, and it is reflected in the article. But as you noted, encyclopedias and some other sources make no mention of Shahnazar, so the present wording is accurate. The article says that the town was founded by Panah Khan, while some sources suggest it was done by advice of Melik Shahnazar. Grandmaster 09:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Potto differentiates the fortress and town, which is consistent with pre-1750s sources that state it was only fortified, not built, in the 1750s. Do you have a source for him converting back to Christianity? He's an assimilated Iranian either way, hence why he is called Mirza Yusuf Nersesov and not Hovsep Nersisyants. In the encyclopedias, Shushi is given a passing mention by authors without expertise in the subject. Even Azeri sources mention Shahnazar, so sources not mentioning him at all have secondary importance. Armenian sources say Shahnazar fortified the pre-existing town at Panah's suggestion, while Azeri sources say Panah built the town with his own hands on a spot Shahnazar suggested. Third-party sources do not have a consistent interpretation. --Steverci (talk) 02:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Shusha was founded by Panah Khan as a fortress, it became a city later. Potto confirms that, along with other sources. Matenadaran says that Nersesov was an Armenian. [25] Do you have any source to prove that he was not an Armenian? If not, then there is nothing to talk about. As for foundation, Armenians Nersesov and Raffi said that the city was built on an empty space, from scratch. And encyclopedias all say that Panah Khan built the city. They are all consistent in this regard. Grandmaster 08:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Your interpretation for Potto is WP:OR. The Matenadaran says he "was an Armenian named Hovsep", before he was assimilated as a Persian. It also says he worked for the Shah and later the Russian army. But he was never affiliated with any Armenian organization or cause, so he cannot be considered an Armenian source. Raffi never said that and the encyclopedias are lacking in expertise. --Steverci (talk) 03:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Why my interpretation of Potto is OR, and yours is not? Matenadaran does not say that he was Persian. If you have a source that Nersesov was not Armenian, please provide it. Otherwise it is your personal opinion that does not count. And encyclopedias are lacking in expertise? How so? Grandmaster 09:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

It's WP:OR to assume anything other than what he said. He only mentioned the date for the fortress, and differentiated it from the town. It's simple. Nersesov was abducted as a child, had his name changed, and grew up outside of Armenian society, therefore he isn't representative of Armenian sources. This should be obviously to anyone editing with good faith that isn't WP:NOTHERE. He's also just one person, not only is he not nearly enough weight, but saying "Armenian sources" would be false even even if we pretend he is representative of Armenian sources. And because someone specializing in Islam or Soviet propaganda is not going to be as qualified to write about Artsakh as someone specializing in Artsakh. Another thing that should be obvious. --Steverci (talk) 04:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I repeat my question. Do you have any source to attest that Nersesov was not Armenian? You personal opinion of who Nersesov was cannot be used in the article. If you wish, we can write Armenian author Nersesov, in a singular form. Or not mention any ethnicity at all. Grandmaster 08:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe assigning Nersesov the label "Armenian author" would result in giving credibility to the same sort of fallacy which one often sees at problemating topic areas on Wikipedia, including WP:AA2. I.e. "because he was of X origin, he must have represented X interests". The label Armenian author should remain reserved for historic figures such as Eznik of Kolb, Arakel of Tabriz, Khachatur Abovian, etc. I fail to see how Nersesov, although of Armenian origin, could possibly represent an Armenian narrative on such a contentious topic, given the WP:RS that describe his life. It would put him on equal footing with guys who are solidly known to represent the Azerbaijani narrative like Mirza Adigozal bey. This, in turn, would violate WP:NPOV. Indeed, its probably best to remove mention of "Armenian". Another option could be: "Mirza Yusuf Nersesov, a writer of Armenian origin who grew up in Iran, served there as a civil servant, and converted to Islam (...)". Or something along those lines. In short; one needs to give due attribution, or provide a WP:RS which states that he was an "Armenian author". - LouisAragon (talk) 11:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Louis, Nersesov should be described as an Armenian source. Jr8825 • Talk 11:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Sources on Nersesov are not abundant, but this one from Matenadaran says: He was an Armenian named Hovsep, born in Hadrut, a village of Qarabagh. [26] He converted to Islam, and later back to Christianity. I have not seen any source to attest that he was not an Armenian. But as a compromise, I proposed another option, which you can see in my post below. Grandmaster 20:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

It all boils down to how the information is being presented. There's a tendency among some editors to allude to a source's bias by way of subtly and primarily referring to them by their ethnic label. What their profession, credentials, experience, etc. were are in reality far more important than them being from the X tribe (and therefore almost ineligible for expressing a particular view). Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 12:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

That is a good point. The chroniclers like Mirza Jamal or Nersesov lived before modern Armenia and Azerbaijan came into existence as independent states, so they were not motivated by nationalism in a modern sense. The only one who might be more nationalistic was novelist Raffi, who wrote in late 19th century and was more of a patriotic revolutionary type. But he was the only one not from Karabakh. Btw, Nersesov converted back to Christianity upon return to Caucasus. I proposed instead of writing "Azerbaijani and Armenian authors" simply write "19th century sources", [27] or "19th century chroniclers", but my edit was reverted. But I think it would be better not to mention ethnicity for the 18-19 century chroniclers. Anyone can check who they were by clicking links to their respective articles. Grandmaster 20:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Even if we're going to consider Nersesov an Armenian source, he alone is not enough due weight to claim "19th century Armenian sources". And just "19th century sources" would be false because a lot of Russian primary sources confirm the pre-1750 founding. --Steverci (talk) 02:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

We write which exactly sources say that. But presenting Nersesov as Azerbaijani when he is not is a violation of Wikipedia rules. You have not provided a single source to attest that he was not an Armenian, and personal opinions do not count. It is WP:OR. Therefore I propose to write "19th century sources", followed by the list in the article. Grandmaster 10:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

And you're violating Wikipedia rules by pretending not to understand WP:UNDUE. "19th century sources" is also a problem because many Russian sources state the town existed before 1750. --Steverci (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

But you wrote in the article that Nersesov is Azerbaijani. Where is your source for that claim? I asked you this question multiple times already, but so far you haven't provided a single source to support you claim. When we write "19th century sources", we say exactly which ones. We do not say that all 19th century sources say that, but that the following 19th century sources write certain thing about the foundation of Shusha. Grandmaster 13:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Then Nersesov should be separated from them. If he is going to be identified by anything though, it should be as a "Qajar writer" or something similar. --Steverci (talk) 02:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a source for Qajar writer? So far we only have sources that he was an Armenian. Grandmaster 08:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

He grew up in Tabriz, was given the rank of Mirza, and wrote his most notable work in Persion. --Steverci (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:OR. Sources say that he was Armenian. Grandmaster 09:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not original research that his WP:COMMONNAME has an Iranian title. --Steverci (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks like we'll have to take this to WP:DRN as well. Grandmaster 17:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

A less controversial question

For consistency, should we use American or British/Commonwealth English spellings? Both are currently used in a roughly equal manner, and we should be sticking to one. Jr8825 • Talk 20:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

That is a tough one. But it appears that American spellings are globally more accepted these days, perhaps because of Hollywood. So I would say let's use American. Grandmaster 21:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Destruction of cultural heritage

The intro says that "multiple reports emerged that the Armenian cultural heritage of the city was being destroyed", but all the sources are Armenian. A Russian source that is used also refers only to Armenian politicians. I think that these claims at the very least require attribution. And why no mention is made of destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage? There are plenty of photo, video and other evidence, including at Wikicommons of ruined mosques, tombs, museums, etc after the city fell to Armenians in 1992. Well-known photo journalist Reza Deghati also documented some of the destruction in his Instagram: [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] I think this should also be reflected in the the article. Grandmaster 14:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I join to this subject. I'd added "Armenian sources" but as usually some Users (ZaniGiovanni, Qawmiyāt) undid without discussion in advance on Talk Page. There is information also about massacre in Shusha in 1920 and destroying, and never remind that the same developments refer to all sides of conflict in the region. --Aydin mirza (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Destruction of cultural heritage is confirmed by Eurasianet. --Steverci (talk) 03:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

That same source also mentions that:

The church renovation thus parallels in some ways Armenians’ custody of the Islamic and Azerbaijani cultural sites on the same territory during the time that they controlled it, from the 1990s until last year. Armenians, with some fanfare, restored a mosque in Shusha in 2019, but they labeled it “Persian” over the objections of Azerbaijanis. In many more cases, though, Armenians simply neglected non-Armenian historic sites, wrote them out of the region’s history, and let them fall into ruin or allowed them to be plundered, a process that Azerbaijanis are now trying to reverse.

Grandmaster 09:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

...and then it mentions that:

The brazenness of this church renovation, though, and the Azerbaijani authorities’ explicitly stated intent to alter its appearance to fit their historical narrative, is yet a further step. --Steverci (talk) 02:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The point is that destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage is also confirmed, so it should be reflected the same way in the lead. Grandmaster 09:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Calling a mosque Iranian is not "destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage", and the source blatantly states cultural heritage destruction is a further step committed by the Azeris. --Steverci (talk) 03:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Quoting once again: Armenians simply neglected non-Armenian historic sites, wrote them out of the region’s history, and let them fall into ruin or allowed them to be plundered. Grandmaster 09:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Neglected =/= destroyed, as the article points out immediately afterward. --Steverci (talk) 04:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

And plundered means what? Grandmaster 08:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Neglect. --Steverci (talk) 02:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Neglect and plunder have different meanings in English. According to dictionary:

Plunder: to steal goods violently from a place, especially during a war; to steal or remove something precious from something, in a way that does not consider moral laws or is more severe than it need be.

Neglect: to not give enough care or attention to people or things that are your responsibility; to not do something, often because you forget.

Stealing and not taking care are two different things.

Grandmaster 10:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

all sources are Armenians, the last one say according to Armenians also, it's not their investigation, no proof, just comments from Twitter etc. It should be edited and noted as "Armenian sources". Or we should again apply to Jr8825, otherwise all editions will be reverted once more. Aydin mirza (talk) 23:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the government did not give care or attention to a few isolated incidents of alleged plundering, because it just ignored the structures. It did not immediately begin organized destruction of cultural monuments under the disguise of "renovations", which is why I am removing the false balance you added to the lead. Get a consensus. --Steverci (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Hallo, all, ZaniGiovanni reverted the same edition and said that we have no consensus. Grandmaster and Jr8825, I don't know if the fact needs any consensus, but pls, let's finish this subject. If it's right, let us know, if it's no way, we close this case. But firstly, I'd like to clarify some issues. 1. why some Users can revert without any discussion every(till now) editions of mine, and I should every step discuss firstly, prove etc? And it happens,considering acceptanance of my previous editions after long discussions. 2. what about the sources and their reliebily? Official site of Arm.Ministry is relieble, but others are news sites. And I once more ask about the last citation(they report from the name of persons). Additional to that, this site is not relieble. The same Users try to block any similar cases in the same surrent article. --Aydin mirza (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Destruction of Azerbaijani cultural monuments is a fact attested by many sources. It must be reflected in the article. At the same time, destruction of Armenian monuments is indeed supported mostly by Armenian sources which are partisan in this issue. Grandmaster 10:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

There is not a single source confirming government organized "Destruction of Azerbaijani cultural monuments" and trying to equivlant that to an individuals plundering is WP:OR and WP:POVPUSH. --Steverci (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Grandmaster, I insert "Armenian reports", but it's reverted immidiately. I don't want to start edit wars, that's why request consensus. Can I insert "mostly Armenian sources" without reverting? I'm applying to Jr8825 as third side, who knows and involves this subject. As regards to destruction of Azerbaijani monuments, I'll see and try to manage. do you assist to insert this information with the sources? Aydin mirza (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

First of all, at least ping me when you're mentioning my name. I like how you pinged Grandmaster and Jr8825 but none of the Armenian editors, including me who reverted you. Especially Grandmaster, since both of you share the same POV. And you don't seem to understand that you aren't supposed to ping someone who'll agree with you, or give your personal commentary when you're asking for opinions since you're breaching WP:CANVASSING. I'm the one who reverted you, and you need to finally understand a couple of things:

1) If you can barely type in proper English grammar, maybe eng-wiki isn't for you, cause figuring out some of your text is torture

2) why some Users can revert without any discussion every(till now) editions of mine, and I should every step discuss firstly, prove etc? Wait hold on a second, I thought Azeri editors were not even slightly reluctant to agree with Jr8825 proposal not so long ago, and I was told that it was the tangentially agreed version multiple times. So I am restoring the agreed version. How many times I have to explain to you WP:BRD WP:ONUS? It's not on me to discuss with you when I revert you, since I'm not the one adding/changing content to the page, you are.

Lastly, we not only have Armenian/Russian sources now, but German source as well. Go find another reason for your "only Armenian reports" line, because I know you care about the sources so much. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

It is not German, it is just another Armenian source. Deutsch-Armenische Juristenvereinigung e.V. German-Armenian Lawyers Association. How is this a reliable source? Grandmaster 20:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

So it's unreliable by virtue of being Armenian? Did you even open or read the contents of the article? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

It is not third party, not neutral. Why then cannot we cite Azerbaijani sources describing destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage? Grandmaster 08:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

one more Armenian source - https://dearjv.de/ueber-uns/vorstand/. the site is just registered in Germany(Deutsch-Armenische Juristenvereinigung e.V.). --Aydin mirza (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

ZaniGiovanni, I think you mean videos and photos in this report. But we discuss here the sources, not the reports. If all sources are Armenian, it should be noted. At least we could insert "mostly Armenian". As to ping you, I don't want to desturb you with my bad English, and prefer to talk to the Users understand me. Aydin mirza (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Why do you want to ethnically classify every source, when clearly with this article we don't have to? And which guideline says "If all sources are Armenian, it should be noted"? First of all, not all sources are Armenian. Secondly, show me the guideline where it says we MUST ethically classify every source, especially when the article report has most if not all the destruction material/videos shown from... Azeri soldiers directly. Lastly, you absolutely have to to show a basic level of English grammar understaning whomever you're talking to, you're on English language Wikipedia. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 04:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The rules require that we use third party sources. Biased sources need proper attribution. Also, German-Armenian lawyers are not a good source on this particular topic. In any case, I also added sources on destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage. It is an undeniable fact, we have lots of pictures in wiki commons that show ruined mosques and other buildings in Shusha, which were taken before 2020. Grandmaster 09:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The rules require that we use third party sources. Biased sources need proper attribution. Also, German-Armenian lawyers are not a good source on this particular topic. – you do understand that the article contains most if not all material/videos directly from Azeri soldiers, right?

I also added sources on destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage. – you added 3 sources – an Instagram post, a report of a tweet (from the same Instagram profile), and an article that mostly talks about Azerbaijani controversial renovation of Armenian church and actually mentions the Armenian church and cementary being destroyed, quote:

"In 1920, Shusha’s Armenians suffered pogroms at the hands of Azerbaijanis and the city’s entire Armenian population was killed or expelled. The church was damaged at this time and it lost its dome, remaining in that damaged".

"Azerbaijan already is known to have destroyed one Armenian church, although that was a three-year-old structure on a military base. Also this week, a group of U.S.-based scholars documenting the fate of Armenian sites in the region published satellite photography showing the destruction of an Armenian cemetery. Azerbaijani officials have not commented."

You'll need better sources for this. Now compare it to the article, when all the material and videos reported are directly from Azeri soldiers self-documenting their vandalism, which shows solid proof of Armenian cultural heritage of the city being destroyed and ruined. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 00:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I used exactly the same source as was used for claims of destruction of Armenian monuments. Eurasianet is the only third party source to support the claims of destruction of Armenian monuments. I can add 4 Azerbaijani sources, and it will be the same sourcing as for claims for Armenian monuments damage. You cannot use Eurasianet selectively. If it reports damages to both types of monuments, it should be quoted exactly as it says. I don't see what destruction of a modern church in Jabrayil has to do with Shusha. Reza Deghati is a world famous photographer, his photos grace covers of National Geographic and many other top publications. He is a lot more reliable than Armenian sources quoted. Please do not revert, the claim is sufficiently sourced. Grandmaster 08:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you read my comment clearly. It's not just "an Armenian source", it's direct self-documented cases of Azeri soldiers destroying Armenian monumtnets and heritage. The website is just a medium, those self-documented vandalism videos and material are perhaps the strongest case of destruction shown so far. Your added source mostly talks about Armenian church/cementary/monument destruction and makes a stronger case for it, you cannot possibly rely only on it for edits such as this. Meanwhile, not only we have the Eurasianet source referencing Arm monument/heritage destruction, but as I said already, self-documented evidence directly from Azeri soldiers. Do you have comparable sources to that? Show and discuss, instead of adding instagram and twitter posts. Weren't you the one saying German-Armenian lawyers are not a good source on this particular topic despite the source contents having nothing to do with their profession, and actually being solid self-documented evidence. But now you don't have a problem of including some national geographic photographer for controversial claims, using his instagram and twitter posts? What reliable publications referenced him? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Some of those videos are proven fakes, and only one is related to Shusha. The rest are modern monuments destroyed elsewhere, and have nothing to do with this article. And Deghati provides a detailed evidence of vandalism. He is certainly more reliable than Armenian lawyers from Germany. There is no rule that Instagram posts cannot be used. As for Eurasianet, if we use it for destruction of Armenian monuments, it should be ok to use it for destruction of Azerbaijani monuments. Selective use is not in line with rules. Grandmaster 08:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Some of those videos are proven fakes, and only one is related to Shusha care to explain which ones? Hope you don't mean the ones with Az unifrom and speaking Azerbaijani.

And Deghati provides a detailed evidence of vandalism. He is certainly more reliable than Armenian lawyers from Germany. He's not more reliable then self-reported evidence by Az sodliers' vandalism, which was swarming the internet during the war, and which the article collected in one place.

As for Eurasianet, if we use it for destruction of Armenian monuments, it should be ok to use it for destruction of Azerbaijani monuments Eurasianet makes stronger case for Armenian monument/heritage destruction. You can't use one sentence quote from the whole article to suit your edit, when bulk of the article tries to show a completely different thing e.g. extensively mentioning Armenian church "renovation" / destruction. Cemetery destruction, etc. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

There is evidence that those angels on the cathedral were destroyed by Armenians themselves. Eurasianet quotes the same Deghati, btw. He is world famous photographer. If you do not like Instagram, we can use this: [33] I will add 5 more Azerbaijani sources, they are as good as Armenian ones. Like this, for example: [34] Both contain plenty of photo evidence. And even if Eurasianet makes brief mention of Armenian destruction, it is more than enough for reference. Who says that one line is not sufficient? I do not see anything about it in the rules. Grandmaster 08:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no mention of mosques being destroyed on the Eurasianet article, and the photographer, Reza Deghati, is a partisan Azerbaijani. He has no sources and is doing original research. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Eurasianet does not talk about ruining and plundering of specific monuments, but Azerbaijani monuments in general. I used the wording of Eurasianet. Deghati can do an original research we cannot. He is a world famous photographer, whose photos were published by top Western newspapers and magazines. And talking about partisanship, why 4 partisan Armenian sources are acceptable, and Deghati is not? He documents vandalism of Azerbaijani monuments in much detail. Grandmaster 09:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The Eurasianet article is about Armenian monuments; everything you're citing it for Azeri monuments is just original research. Calling Reza Deghati very pro-Azeri or partisan would be an understatement, he's practically a government spokesmen.[35][36] And thus not a reliable source by any means. --Steverci (talk) 02:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

How quoting exact wording of Eurasianet is original research? Original research would be if I wrote something that was not there. As for Reza Deghati being partisan, there are 4 partisan Armenian sources claiming destruction. Why is it Ok to use Armenian partisan sources, and not ok to use Azerbaijani (though Deghati is in fact Iranian-French)? Grandmaster 08:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Eurasianet only has a passing mention and nothing more. One passing mention from an article about Armenian heritage destruction isn't due enough to be used, especially for the lead. Note that Eurasianet didn't think claims of Azeri heritage destruction deserved their own article. This is WP:FALSEBALANCE. It doesn't even matter what his background is, he's a advocate in the employ of the Azeri government. And there are just as many non-Armenian sources, which you conveniently ignored, including Russian, German, European, and even Azeri self-documented vandalism and destruction. --Steverci (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I added another third party source, and 2 Azerbaijani. Should be sufficient. Grandmaster 09:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

UserXpetVarpet, we have consensus to edit and undo after dicussion. Your last undo is unsubstantiated. Don't you see similar sources below? Maybe it's also unobjective interpretation of the sources. Aydin mirza (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

You need to learn what consensus is. There was no consensus for that dubious sourced edit, and it was rightfully reverted. The discussion is still very much ongoing. If you'll add it again without consensus, you'll be reverted per WP:BRD, WP:ONUS. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 00:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

In addition to Eurasianet, Steverci and ZaniGiovanni keep removing this third party source: [37] And here's another third party source:

Conflict, Exclusion and Dissent in the Linguistic Landscape. Editors: Rubdy, Rani, Ben Said, Selim. 2015

Chapter:

Language Removal, Commodification and the Negotiation of Cultural Identity in Nagorno-Karabakh

Pages 77-100

by Muth, Sebastian

Quote:

In the past century, Shusha was destroyed three times, for the first time in 1905 in the Armenian-Tartar War, when interethnic violence between Armenians and Azerbaijanis left the city in ruins. Right before Karabakh became part of the Soviet Union, Azerbaijani forces destroyed the Armenian quarters of the city in 1920. Virtually the whole ethnic-Armenian population of the city perished or was exiled in what later became known as the Shusha pogrom (De Waal, 2003, pp. 52-53). For the third time the city was destroyed by Armenians in 1992 during the Nagorno-Karabakh War, when Armenian militias conquered one of the last Azerbaijani strongholds in Karabakh in a victory that is commemorated annually throughout the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic on May 9. Following previous patterns, this time the Azerbaijani quarter of Shusha was looted and its cultural monuments defaced or destroyed.

Given the troubled history of Sbusha, the city and its landscape frame and embody historic, cultural and political processes (cf. Czepczynski, 2008, p. 47) for both Armenians and Azerbaijanis. However, today Shusha is a largely depopulated town that is slowly being resettled by ethnic Armenians. Azerbaijani religious monuments of historic significance such as the Ashaghi Govhar Agha Mosque (Figure 4.2) were either destroyed or are left in disrepair, while the whole of the former Azerbaijani quarter is abandoned. Similar to the effects of the pogrom of 1920 when the ruins of the Armenian quarter were left standing until removed by Soviet-Azerbaijani urban planning in 1961 (De Waal, 2003, p. 52), the Azerbaijani quarter of Shusha remains as a reminder of defeat. Inside the quarter, remnants of the former inhabitants and their language, culture and architecture are visible in the form of old noticeboards written in Azeri in Cyrillic script or ornamental verses in Arabic and Persian on the walls of mosques (cf. Muth, 2014, pp. 73-75). Local Armenian informants highlighted the former significance of particular architectural structures such as the former local headquarters of the Azerbaijani Ministry of Interior's security forces (Figure 4.3).

So here is a scholarly source attesting to destruction of Azerbaijani monuments. I think Steverci and ZaniGiovanni should stop removing sourced information. It is not in line with Wikipedia rules. Grandmaster 10:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

He's not really adding anything new though, is he? He's still citing De Waal, which means that he probably didn't do any original research on the subject to comment on it with any authority. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

He refers to de Waal only when discussing the events of 1920s. He provides a reference to de Waal where he refers to him, which is when discussing the 1920s. But de Waal did not write about Lower Govhar Aga mosque, for example. And the author did his own research and traveled for that to Nagorno-Karabakh. Grandmaster 18:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Failedarchitecture.com is essentially a blog and the author a "writer and visual artist based in London". Not a reliable source. The Muth source makes a very false claim because there are not any monuments that were entirely destroyed, nor does he even name any. --Steverci (talk) 02:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

If we quote German-Armenian lawyers, why cannot we quote an artist who saw vandalism with his own eyes? Muth says that historical buildings were defaced, destroyed or left in disrepair, and names in particular Ashaghi Govhar Agha Mosque, and even posts its photo in the book. Grandmaster 08:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

It's a blog written by a nobody. Ruined due to being abandoned or deliberate cultural destruction? You have no credible sources for the latter. --Steverci (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I provided a scholarly source right above. Muth says that "Azerbaijani quarter of Shusha was looted and its cultural monuments defaced or destroyed". Grandmaster 08:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

And yet they are visibly still standing, and Muth didn't identify a single one allegedly destroyed. --Steverci (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Btw, we have plenty of photo evidence of destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage even on this site. What is the point in denial? Just a few examples.

• 
  Ashaghi Govhar Agha Mosque
• 
  Mardinli Mosque
• 
  Saatli mosque
• 
  Chukhur mehelle mosque
• 
  Khoja Marjanli Mosque
• 
  House-museum of Uzeyir Hajibeyov
• 
  House-museum and bust of Bulbul
• 
  Khan's palace
• 
  Palace of poetess Natavan
• 
  Palace of poetess Natavan, another facade
• 
  House of artist Mir Mohsun Navvab
• 
  House of Jabbar Garyagdioglu

Grandmaster 20:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks like it's still standing and is just abandoned. This is no evidence of deliberate organized cultural destruction, as Azerbaijan is committing. --Steverci (talk) 02:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

As is obvious from the photos, the buildings are ruined, and sources that I quoted also attest to that. Grandmaster 08:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

It looks obvious from the photos that the buildings fell apart from not being used, not deliberitly destroyed. --Steverci (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

These are not deliberately destroyed? They are taken apart brick by brick. I provided a scholarly source that says Azerbaijani monuments were deliberately destroyed. So we have sources, and visual evidence too. There is also plenty of video evidence that I can post here.

Chukhur mehelle mosque

Khan's palace

Khoja Marjanli Mosque

Grandmaster 08:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

And what was their previous condition? How do we know they weren't ruined during the war and just never repaired? These photos by themselves are nothing. If there was deliberate Azeri cultural heritage destruction, Eurasianet or some other western NGO would've been all too eager to write a thesis on it, but the fact is there isn't. --Steverci (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I requested a third opinion on this. I hope it will help to resolve this issue. Grandmaster 08:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

You can't request a third opinion when more than 2 editors are involved, see WP:THIRD. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I took it to WP:DRN as well. Grandmaster 10:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Great Soviet Encyclopedia

How can the Great Soviet Encyclopedia possibly be considered a WP:RS source? Per the eponymous article on Wikipedia and the listed source, it claimed to be "the first Marxist–Leninist general-purpose encyclopedia". See also; Human rights in the Soviet Union, Historiography in the Soviet Union. I fail to see how a "Marxist-Lenininst" encyclopedia, created in a polity without freedom of press, is somehow a reliable source on such a contentious topic area. Even moreso considering that the modern-day root of the region's problem lays in Soviet policies and Soviet decision making. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

It is just one of the many sources that confirm Shusha being founded in 1752. What it wrote is no different from what Encyclopedia of Islam or Iranica wrote. I don't see how an article on the history of a town could be affected by Soviet ideology, especially when what it writes is identical to what the Western scholarship says. But I'm ok with it being replaced by something else, there are many to chose from. Grandmaster 09:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Done. Feel free to add better sources that support the same claim. - LouisAragon (talk) 11:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Alliance?

Could you please show me how many sources talk about Shusha being built in alliance with Shahnazar? I think it is obvious that most sources only say that Shahnazar suggested a place, and others don't mention him at all. How then it could be claimed that it was built in alliance, when most sources do not support this claim? Please mind WP:WEIGHT, a minority view cannot be presented as fact. For convenience, I collected all the sources that I provided here: User:Grandmaster/Shusha. Grandmaster 09:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeed most reliable sources that have been brought up in fact mention only Panah Ali Khan, no alliance with Shahnazar is shown. Even Armenian researcher Paruyr Seyranian in Карабах и Россия. Страницы истории mentions Panah Khan only ("В момент, когда Панах-хан строил Шуши...", p. 40). If anything, the minority view could be briefly mentioned in the article's body, but not in the lead. Brandmeister^talk 14:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

This isn't the first time I see two of you discuss with each other in very short intervals and assume consensus based on that. You know this article isn't only edited by Azerbaijani editors, and others may want to express their thoughts about your great suggestions. Moreover, people have lives and jobs and maybe, just maybe, they shouldn't be expected to reply on talk just after the discussion was opened. Some may even only edit on weekends cause of their IRL activities, crazy right? I'll wait for others to join this, as you can't assume a “consensus” out of two like-minded editors' discussion. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Even Azerbaijan's #1 shill Thomas de Waal calls it an alliance, as you quoted him writing. --Steverci (talk) 02:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

De Waal does not say that Panah Khan built Shusha in alliance. He says that Panah Khan "cemented his position by a marriage alliance with one of the five Armenian meliks, or princes, Shakhnazar of Varanda", i.e. he talks not about construction, but political alliance in order to strengthen his power. If you check 14 sources that I quoted, 13 of them do not mention any alliance. Grandmaster 08:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

But the nature of their partnership was being disputed. And Shahnazar, even if he only suggested the site, still played a role in the alleged foundation. Of those 13 sources, 8 are biased, and 4 refers only to the fortress. --Steverci (talk) 03:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@ZaniGiovanni: You're more than welcome to join the discussion, yet I only see you reverting. My main issue in the lead is that "attributing this to an alliance between Panah Ali Khan and Shahnazar" is not what "most sources" say, as our current lead says. Perhaps this could be reworded as A few sources attribute this to an alliance between Panah Ali Khan and Shahnazar.... I also think that Raffi should be used with caution, as he was a novelist, not a scholar or researcher (or better, avoided in such red flag assertions). Brandmeister^talk 10:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, Raffi is the least reliable of quoted sources. He was a late 19th century novelist, and not a historian. He liked to embellish and dramatize the facts. And most sources do not talk about alliance, it is a minority view. Grandmaster 16:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

And yet you are fine quoting a 21st century journalist who has been criticized for distorting the truth and sensationalism, as long as it suits your agenda? --Steverci (talk) 03:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

De Waal is a reputable expert, and was never criticized by any reliable source. We have discussed this before. Grandmaster 09:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Plainly false. He has been criticized by a great deal of people more qualified than himself.[38][39][40]

Alliance is the relationship between equal partners, as we know Panah Khan established de facto independent khanate and subordinated the Five Melikdoms (including Melik Shahnazar of Varanda, who first accepted Panah-Ali Khan's suzerainty). We can say "support", but not "alliance" or "union". Aydin mirza (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Additional to that, all sources talk about supporting, but not alliance between them. This information should be corrected, becuase it confuses the readers. Aydin mirza (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Robert Hewsen, in his study on the meliks, which I think should be given greater precedence over De Waal and all the other non-expert sources being cited here, says "Forced by this coalition to join forces with Panah, Shahnazar and his Turkoman ally built the fortress of Shushi (Susi) in Varanda and from there, defied the other meliks and, then, through various modes of treachery, began to oust them from their lands": "The Meliks of Eastern Armenia: A Preliminary Study," Revue des Études Arméniennes 9 (1972): p. 325. And alliance need not necessarily mean that it is a partnership between two equals (which possesses a somewhat amorphous meaning in this context). Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 05:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:Weight. There is majority and minority opinion. The majority does not say Shusha was built in alliance. It says it was built by Panah Khan, possibly by advice from Shahnazar. Grandmaster 09:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

You keep proclaiming to have the stronger due weight, but you really don't. All but one of the sources you provided are either partisan or only referring to the fortress. --Steverci (talk) 04:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

None of the sources that I quoted is partisan. Grandmaster 08:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Adigozal bey, Jamal Javanshir, Nersesov, Ahmad bey Javanshir, Bakikhanov, Encyclopaedia of Islam, de Waal, and Encyclopedia of Islamic Art and Architecture are all partisan. --Steverci (talk) 02:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

They are not. Grandmaster 09:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

And you are WP:NOTHERE. --Steverci (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

User talk:Grandmaster, "alliance" was deleted but it's reverted. I will edit it, because it confused the readers. Alliance could be not between suzyren and subordinated units. We talked about it whole week. I'd like to edit, but sure it'll be reverted again. what do you suggest? I think to apply again to Jr8825. --Aydin mirza (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is a violation of WP:WEIGHT. Grandmaster 10:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

No it is not. As already said below, two or more groups need not be equal in order to be allied. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Two or more groups need not be equal in order to be allied. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

We're straying a bit from the crux. The alliance between Panah Ali Khan and Shahnazar is not mentioned in most sources that date Shusha's establishment to the 1750s, so our current assertion in the lead looks partially incorrect. We're currently combining some sources with others to present a statement not contained in the majority of them which is WP:SYNTH. As such, I suggest rewording: Other sources attribute this to an alliance between Panah Ali Khan and Shahnazar, the local Armenian prince (melik) of Varanda. Brandmeister^talk 22:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I think that makes sense. Grandmaster 09:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

But even Azeri sources acknowledge Shahnazar, so the sources not mentioning him (which are referring to just the fortress anyway) could be considered just brief summaries that leave out important details. --Steverci (talk) 02:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia generally prefers secondary and tertiary sources over the primary ones. From what I see, Shahnazar isn't mentioned in most, if not all WP:SECONDARY and WP:TERTIARY sources that the articles uses (Iranica, Encyclopaedia of Islam, Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary, Tim Potier, etc.). So it would be better to mention him in a separate sentence, not attached to "most sources". Brandmeister^talk 16:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

The majority of Grandmaster's sources (which again, either have a clear bias or refer only to the fortress) were created in the 19th century or earlier, so most of them could be considered primary. In fact, one of the most modern sources is de Waal, a pro-Azeri shill, who mentions Shahnazar. --Steverci (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

If you speak Russian, have a look at thoroughly sourced ru:Шуша#Основание_города. All cited secondary and tertiary sources except Bournoutian mention Panah only, without Shahnazar. I can translate the relevant part, if needed. As long as we mention Shahnazar, we should do it separately per verifiability and due weight so as to not mislead the reader. Brandmeister^talk 12:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, these are primarily the same sources we've already discussed, plus some published in Azerbaijan. --Steverci (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

What I mean is that I'm going to match sources according to their assertions, so sources that don't mention Shahnazar's alliance will be separated from those that do per WP:Attribution. For that, the "attributing this to an alliance between Panah Ali Khan and Shahnazar" part of the lead will become a new sentence. Brandmeister^talk 09:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I support this. Splitting the sentence will make clear that it is another version supported by some, but not all sources. Grandmaster 07:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I oppose this. This would create an unnecessary WP:ALLEGED for something those other sources do not actually contradict. Assuming these brief summaries failing to mention Shahnazar means he wasn't a factor at all is WP:OR. --Steverci (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Matching assertions to sources is not something controversial, this is what WP:Attribution and Wp:Verifiability says should be done. If Shahnazar is not mentioned in quoted sources (in this case The Encyclopaedia of Islam), then verification failed. There's even Template:Failed verification. Let's reflect what sources actually say and not combine them to reach a conclusion by throwing everything in one pot. WP:SYNTHESIS is explicitly discouraged. I wonder why we're still discussing this further. Brandmeister^talk 15:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

You can find many articles casually referring to Charles Pfizer as the founder of Pfizer, but if they neglect to mention Charles F. Erhart as well, that doesn't mean they are denying that Erhart is a co-founder. A source explicitly arguing Erhart is not a co-founder would be needed. And there are none like that for Shahnazar. Who is the author of this brief mention in the Encyclopaedia of Islam anyway? Does it even have an author? --Steverci (talk) 02:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

There's no such rule or policy. If X is mentioned in the cited sources, but Y is not mentioned, then we do not mention Y either, check out Wikipedia:Verifiability. As simple as that. And I cited multiple sources in that regard, not just Encyclopaedia of Islam. Brandmeister^talk 13:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

There is a rule, what you're doing is WP:OR. --Steverci (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. I'm afraid you're still having difficulties in understanding WP:Synthesis, WP:Verifiability and WP:Attribution. @Jr8825: as you helped in writing more balanced lead previously, could we have your mediation here? For reference: My proposed wording which was reverted. Brandmeister^talk 20:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

You have not provided a single sources claiming Shahnazar wasn't involved in building the fortress. --Steverci (talk) 21:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Putting it simply: If he is not mentioned in most sources, why should we mention him? I offered a compromise: let's attach this claim to sources that do mention him. Brandmeister^talk 21:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

80% lead claim

• "According to journalist Thomas de Waal's reckoning during a visit in 2000, it was 80% ruined."

Why is this passing mention, this quote on quote “reckoning” in the lead? What research did De Waal, a journalist, do to arrive at "80% ruined" claim? What analysis indicate this percentage? Per WP:UNDUE, MOS:LEAD the claim has nowhere near the due weight to be included, and is only a passing mention. The claim is even more undue as it's mentioned in the lead, as: "The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight.". ZaniGiovanni (talk) 03:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

De Waal is a reliable source. Other sources say the same. According to Sebastian Muth, after Shusha was captured, Armenian forces destroyed most of the town. Also, please do not remove information without consensus at talk. Grandmaster 08:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The question isn't about reliableness or not, the one line claim / "reckoning" of a journalist isn't WP:DUE for the lead, you don't seem to read MOS:LEAD. Moreover, it's just a passing mention, what is that claim based on, and how De Waal is even able to assess those percentages from the top of his head or rather "reckoning"? It also falls under WP:EXCEPTIONAL. No RS source confirms his "80% ruined" claim, and most certainly it's not lead weight worthy. Do not revert. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

This was thoroughly discussed in April, ad we settled on present version: [41] If you want to restart that discussion, you can do so, but removal of content without agreement of other involved parties is not acceptable. Grandmaster 10:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

You were explained back in April that the claim is not exceptional. And it is not a passing mention, there is a whole article by de Waal about how Armenians burned and looted the city. Grandmaster 10:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

How is a "reckoning" especially of a journalist LEAD worthy, can you finally answer my question? It breaches both MOS:LEAD and WP:WEIGHT. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

It is an estimate of destruction by a reliable third party source, that is considered an authority on this conflict. Grandmaster 10:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I also asked for an outside opinion, since so far only two editors are involved in this discussion. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I took it to WP:DRN. Grandmaster 10:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I am willing to provide a 3O and perhaps undertake some further discussion, if I am third enough. However, I note that the WP:DRN case is related to the discussion above this one. Does it also cover this discussion? If so, a separate discussion here would conflict. CMD (talk) 10:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The DRN is for another discussion above, as far as I understand. I have no objection to you being a 3O for this discussion, but I already requested one. Not sure what's done in this kind of situation. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Hi. Thank you, I would appreciate if you could provide a third opinion on this issue. Extent of destruction of the city could also be a part of the general discussion about destruction of cultural heritage. Grandmaster 10:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Taking a look at the lead, and reading the previous discussions, I think it is hard to disentangle the two conversations. Destruction of cultural heritage is presumably part of destruction as a whole, and its' the same paragraph. On the whole, focusing on the lead only is I find not too conducive to collaborative article building, and this particular lead feels far more about the general conflict than the city itself which is a shame. The lead also tends a bit towards recentism, in many cases this is perhaps unavoidable, but it's worth keeping in mind. Nonetheless this is where we are, and reading through I have some various thoughts relating to the specific dispute here. Forgive me for starting quite generally to show where I am coming from.

• The lead should be a quite general summary, providing a high-level overview which should be explained in detail within the body.
• Cities are inherently a combination of infrastructure and people. Significant recent changes to either would presumably be due an inclusion in any city lead.
• Within the current structure of the lead, which does as mentioned go on about the conflict, mention of destruction due to war and/or other events seems due.
• The edit in question ([42]) removes completely mention of infrastructure changes (so to speak) to the city in 1992, leaving only mention of demographic changes.
• However, a specific attribution to one individual that few readers will be remotely aware of raises significant questions in any lead context, as it feels the opposite of a high-level summary. For something to be in a lead I would expect it to be reasonably common among sources. The specific wording also has an odd chronological jump to 2000 in between two 1992s. The figure itself, 80%, feels like quite a round estimate, and there are different ways to quantify destruction.
• The source in question ([43]) is an odd incomplete copy. If it was going to cite something, it should cite [44]. This is already in the body, alongside the incomplete version, so some fixing up is needed there.
• There do not appear to be any other sources in the specific section on the topic, aside from another one from the same author which supports a very specific topic (statues) that would certainly be undue in the lead.

Following from the above thoughts, while the specific figure of destruction may be disputed (and perhaps a fool's errand to pin down), I find the general idea that there was widespread destruction in 1992 to be prima facie credible. There is a reasonable body of research and reporting from Nagorno-Karabakh between 1992 and 2020, I'm sure there must be a few sources that had some look at Shusha. It would be good if a few more sources could also be added to the relevant body section. Despite this lack of other sources, and while I do not like the wording of the removed sentence, I do not see the merit of removing all mention of damage to the city. I would support the idea of a more high-level mention of the damage.

On a related aside, I find the paragraph to be generally lacking in conveying the scale of demographic change as well. The focus on Armenian and Azerbaijani hides the overall scale of change. This city clearly underwent a severe contraction in population. Having 20,000 expelled in 1920 implies there were quite a lot more than 20,000 at the time, then there was a new expulsion in 1992, and the infobox gives a 2015 population of a paltry 4,000. It is presumably now even less than that. CMD (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

That sounds like a good way to approach it within the lead. Is it possible to move away from details about which side destroyed what & when, and reduce it to a more holistic description along the lines of: "the city suffered significant destruction, cultural vandalism and depopulation during the Nagorno-Karabkah conflict"? Jr8825 • Talk 15:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Thank you very much for your opinion. Regarding de Waal, indeed, it is better to link the full text, instead of incomplete IWPR publication. As you can see from that text, Armenians themselves admitted in their interviews that they burned and destroyed the city. In addition, satellite imagery, and photo and video evidence (some of which was uploaded here by Armenian travelers) also shows extensive damage, especially to historical quarters and Muslim religious buildings. I see no point in obscuring the obvious. Regarding the scale of destruction, Sebastian Muth in War, language removal and self-identification in the linguistic landscapes of Nagorno-Karabakh writes that "Armenian forces destroyed most of the town" [45] [46]. We can also write "most of the town", instead of 80%. Regarding population figures, according to the Russian imperial statistics, in 1917 the population of the city was around 42,000, of which Armenians were about 23,000, and Azerbaijanis 19,000. In Soviet times the city had predominantly Azerbaijani population, of about 20,000. There are no precise numbers for the period of 1992-2020, because there was no official census, and claims of de-facto Armenian authorities were inflated. At least, OSCE fact finding missions did not find them reliable. But apparently there were between 2000-4000 Armenians living in Shusha in those years. Present figures are unknown, so I think infobox should have no figures for present population. But I agree that population changes (which were indeed dramatic, from 42,000 to 20,000, then to less than 4000, and presumably not much more than that now) should also be reflected. Grandmaster 15:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Support removal de Waal is just not the authoritative expert that the Carnegie Endowment spends millions to present him as. Ultimately, he's a yellow journalist with a Russian literature major that has a long record of distorting the truth. A petition against de Waal and Carnegie was recently signed by many academics (including some non-Armenians), all more qualified than de Waal himself. De Waal has come under criticism before from Armenian professors and institutions and cannot be given a special status in the header for something WP:EXCEPTIONAL. --Steverci (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

It still puzzles me how a journalist's “reckoning” especially of such controversial origin and number, "80% ruined", somehow was included in the lead. No matter what some editors want to do/convince others, De Waal is still a journalist at the end, nothing more. And he should be treated appropriately. His words, his “reckonings” of such EXCEPTIONAL nature/claim have no way near enough WP:DUE weight to be included, especially in the lead. How did he even arrive at that “80% ruined” number, that's literally impossible for a journalist to calculate. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 03:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe Grandmaster's suggestion of "most of the town" is a nice solution to the exceptional number issue. Other variations along a similar principle include "much of the town", "large areas of the city", "substantial parts of the settlement", etc., depending on what works within the surrounding text. CMD (talk) 04:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

De Waal's claim is not exceptional. I quoted other sources, such as Muth, which is a scholarly source. Regarding "criticism" of de Waal, the only criticism of him comes from Armenian and pro-Armenian sources that are not happy with his independent stance. The extensive damage to the city after Armenian takeover in 1992 is so obvious that denying is impossible. Some even talk about urbicide [47]. So it is not just one or two buildings destroyed, but pretty much most of the town, which is obvious even from photos available at commons. Almost every landmark of the city is ruined. I have not seen a single reliable source that would say the city was in a good condition. So I agree that writing "most of the town" would solve the issue. Grandmaster 08:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Muth never says anything about the percentage of the town destroyed and by who, he just claims Azeri monuments were destroyed but can't identify any. De Waal avoided calling the Armenian Genocide by the G-word and admits in his Black Garden introduction that it's a pro-Azeri book. Conversely, the fact Azeris are so eager to push de Waal as a neutral and credible source is because they are aware he is partisan to them. --Steverci (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis super busy irl, couldn't reply earlier. To be clear, I don't think that De Waal's 'reckoning' should be included in the lead, for the various reasons mentioned above, even if we change the wording. It's still an exceptional claim, and apparently, there is another supposed RS source supporting his claim, but I haven't checked it yet. Will do this weekend, most likely, because of work. Regardless, per WP:EXCEPTIONAL we need multiple RS sources supporting such claim for it to be included, especially in the lead as: The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight.. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 01:45, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I thought the exceptional claim was the percent figure. What is the exceptional claim exactly? CMD (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Can there be a reasonable doubt that the city is mostly ruined? Check the photos of destroyed Azerbaijani cultural heritage I posted above. And that is just a few examples. Also, this eyewitness account also provides the same 80% figure [48] Grandmaster 07:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

de Waal's assumptions are conveniently put after the "capture of Shushi by Armenians" sentence. We can't actually determine anything out of that, because those "ruins" may as well be just the aftermath of the war. It gives a false impression, and de Waal is an unreliable journalist to begin with. --Steverci (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

We have already discussed de Waal extensively in the article about him. If you disagree with the outcome of that discussion, you can take it to WP:RSN. We go with what the sources say. De Waal writes: Armenians came in and set the town on fire. Ten years on, at least 80 per cent of Shusha is still in ruins. Muth said that most of the town was destroyed. And here's another source, Armed Conflict Survey 2019. The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) Routledge, 02 Oct 2019, quote: The eastern part of the town of Shushi/Shusha, Nagorno-Karabakh, which was completely destroyed in 1992. I think the reasonable solution would be to write that most of the city was destroyed. We don't see any evidence to the contrary. Grandmaster 20:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Starting a discussion on RSN would be pointless, because not all biased sources are unreliable sources. He's just not the definitive expert that Azeris and his fellow think tank thugs want him to be; he should be regarded no differently than any other pro-Azeri partisan source. --Steverci (talk) 02:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

That is your personal opinion, not what the wiki community thinks. This place works by consensus. So is the proposal by Chipmunkdavis ok with you? Grandmaster 08:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you dispute that Shusha was ruined in 1992? I don't think there can be a reasonable doubt about that. In addition to de Waal, who talked to Armenian witnesses of destruction, we have Muth and IISS attesting to the same. We have plenty of photo and video evidence that show the wide-scale destruction. And here's another source, IWPR report from Shusha. The title speaks for itself: In the Ruins of Shusha. A ruined town in Karabakh makes a Georgian reporter reflect on this conflict and his own. So, Shusha was ruined. Quote from the text: A new modern road winds through the little houses that resemble ancient Roman ruins and the awful tall ruined apartment blocks with dozens of empty windows yawning open. In the old town, now almost completely destroyed, a sign remains in the Azeri language saying that this is Nizami Street. A crane stands next to one of the two mosques - evidently the local authorities are restoring it to demonstrate their tolerance. English translation has a mistake, it says Armenian instead of Roman. Original Russian text is here: [49] We have plenty of sources that Shusha was completely ruined in 1992. Why are we still arguing over this? Grandmaster 12:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

No one disputes it was ruined during fighting in a war, but what you keep trying to WP:POVPUSH without any reliable sources is claims of deliberate cultural destruction. The IWPR blog is written by an unnamed Georgian, so it could never be considered reliable. And Georgian sources are generally anti-Armenian anyway. The text undeniably has a biased tone, not a single sentence isn't condescending. Please only share sources that are reliable, not ones that confirm what you want to write. --Steverci (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

"Georgian sources are generally anti-Armenian", says who? And it is IWPR, which is an international organization. And sources say that Shusha was burned and looted. Muth and de Waal are quoted above. Accusing me of WP:POVPUSH when I provided a number of reliable sources is not in line with WP:AGF. Grandmaster 18:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The proposed wording is: After the capture of Shusha in 1992 by Armenian forces during First Nagorno-Karabakh War, the city's Azerbaijani population was expelled, and most of the city was destroyed. i.e. "most of the city was destroyed" is new wording, with "most" replacing "80%". Grandmaster 18:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC).

OC Media,[50] for one example. IWPR disclaimer: The opinions expressed on iwpr.net are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the Institute for War & Peace Reporting. So the article's reliability hinges on a random Georgian who wouldn't even share their name. I'd reject that wording without a reliable source that most of the destruction came after the battle. --Steverci (talk) 21:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

IWPR article says the same thing as other sources that I cited. I already cited Muth, who writes: For the third time the city was destroyed by Armenians in 1992 during the Nagorno-Karabakh War, when Armenian militias conquered one of the last Azerbaijani strongholds in Karabakh in a victory that is commemorated annually throughout the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic on May 9. Following previous patterns, this time the Azerbaijani quarter of Shusha was looted and its cultural monuments defaced or destroyed. Grandmaster 23:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

We should move on from the de Waal discussion here, as it is not too relevant. I have opined that a name callout and the specific number could be dropped from the lead, and Grandmaster has agreed to that, leaving a more general claim. I don't have access to this IISS source, but always good to have more on the matter. CMD (talk) 03:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Regarding IISS, the quoted text is a caption to a photo showing ruined quarters of Shusha. I'm not sure if this link to google books will work for you, but the book can be accessed there: [51] Grandmaster 08:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: what is your opinion, can we go ahead and amend the article? I don't think there can be any reasonable doubt that most of Shusha was destroyed in 1992. Grandmaster 21:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Certainly little doubt it was mostly destroyed by the end of 1992. There hasn't been any objection to a more general text, so I would say we can move ahead here. CMD (talk) 04:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Collage

@TagaworShah: The collage in the infobox should not be changed unilaterally, without consultation with other involved editors. Edit warring instead of discussion is not in line with WP:BOLD and WP:BRD. The collage should represent popular landmarks of the city. What is the point in inserting a photo of the monument to Vazgen Sargsyan (who is considered a war criminal in Azerbaijan), which was installed during Armenian control of the city, and is now demolished? If the quality of images in the previous collage is an issue, then let's discuss which images to include, and achieve a consensus. But changing the collage without discussion, despite objections of other editors, and edit warring to keep it is unacceptable. Grandmaster 20:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

How about you review what edit warring constitutes again before making bold claims, a simple revert of an edit based solely on your personal opinion as opposed to Wikimedia Standards is not “edit warring.” Multiple editors, here and on the commons have expressed concern about the collage being outdated, so I went out of my way to use better images of the exact same locations. I also did talk to other users such as Curiousgolden who seems to be in favor of my collage. Again collages are not a matter of personal opinion but image quality, I didn’t even change any of the structures, if you are so concerned about a tiny statue that I didn’t even notice, I will change it to an image of the city center suggested by Curiousgolden, but accusing other editors of “edit warring” for undoing an edit based on your own personal opinion with no valid rationale is not constructive, this collage has nothing to do with the debates going on in this page which I am not involved in.TagaworShah (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Once your edit is reverted, it means that there are objections to it. Instead of reverting back, it is recommended to discuss the issue, as per WP:BRD. Grandmaster 20:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The statue has been replaced with a quality image of the city center.TagaworShah (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

That is better, thank you. Grandmaster 20:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Good, glad we could work that out. Just a tip about Wikipedia policy however, WP:BRD is an optional dispute resolution strategy. Per WP:RMV, good faith additions, such as a simple collage, are to remain in the article pending consensus, so it would’ve been better if you just started a talk page discussion rather than reverting, as you can see I would’ve been more than happy to change an image. Me boldy changing the collage also isn’t a problem, per WP:STABLE “ boldly making changes to articles is encouraged as a matter of policy, and obstructing good faith edits for the sake of preserving "stable" content is disruptive.” Just for future reference.TagaworShah (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

According to WP:BOLD: After the reversion of your bold edit, you might want to be bold in an edit on the talk pages so as to not start an edit war; see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle for more. In any case, it was me who started this discussion, and I'm also glad that the problem is solved. Grandmaster 21:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Kanach Zham Image

Hello @Jr8825:, I was looking through the history section of the article and noticed that in the foundation section, the Kanach Zham Church built in 1818 was missing, I see that you removed it in this edit on September 23[52] where your edit summary was simply “moved Bournoutian source (p. 133) from lead, following discussion on talk page. By extension, it doesn't support the sentence "served as an ancient fortress" in this section either, so I've removed it there too. Minor c/e: clarity regarding naming (modern name Shusha is confusing when talking about earlier history), English accuracy.” I don’t see anything to do with the deletion of the image, I also do not see any discussion about it on the talk page. I’m wondering if this was an accidental deletion or on purpose? If on purpose we need to discuss putting it back as that image helped provide balance and NPOV, the Kanach Zham Church is one of the oldest structures in Shusha and should be included back where it was for a long time. If your rationale was that the church is now destroyed, while it is true that Azerbaijan did at least partially destroy the church during the war, they are rebuilding it(probably erasing the Armenian cultural heritage from it but that’s irrelevant). As you can see in this video by the BBC News in Russia, the church still exists.[53] I would like to add back the picture of the church in the foundation section. If you have any objections, please let me know so we can discuss, Thank you! TagaworShah (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@TagaworShah: Looks like I simply made a mistake there while moving things around (I would've mentioned it in the edit summary if it was deliberate, I generally try to list/explain each major change I make). Please feel free to add it back in. Jr8825 • Talk 18:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jr8825: No worries, I figured the deletion was most likely accidental. I’ll be adding it back right now. Cheers! TagaworShah (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)