Talk:Shusha

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: [1] 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: [2] 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: [3] 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. [4] 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” [5], [6], [7], 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. [8]

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. [9]

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. [10]

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. [11]

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: [12]

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. [13]

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 [14]. 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: [15] 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: [16]. 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": [17]

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. [18]

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). [19]

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. [20] 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. [21] 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", [22] 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)

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: [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] 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: [28] I will add 5 more Azerbaijani sources, they are as good as Armenian ones. Like this, for example: [29] 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.[30][31] 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: [32] 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)

Arbitrary break

Here's one more source [33]. This is from the forensics lab of the Atlantic Council and it's been quoted by the NYT. The latter article is an opinion piece, so we shouldn't use it for statements of fact. Alaexis_¿question? 06:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

And an ever better one [34] from the Cornell University's Caucasus Heritage Watch project:

“ As the report documents, Smith said, “the most at-risk sites are monuments related to the long Armenian presence in the region, including churches, monasteries, cemeteries and other sites from pre-Christian periods through the early 20th century.”

For example, satellite images in the June report show damage to Ghazanchets’ots Cathedral in the town of Shusha (or Shushi), corroborating eyewitness statements of an artillery attack on the building in October 2020.

CHW’s report also reveals the destruction of the Mets T’agher/Böyük Tağlar Cemetery, including evidence of bulldozers grading the site, pushing “earth and funerary materials” into a large berm. The report confirms that the 18th-century Aygek Mosque was destroyed by an Azerbaijani road crew, with May 2021 satellite images of the area showing a blank space where a building had been in September 2018.

CHW also has highlighted a number of sites that are at risk, such as the 7th-century Vank’asar Church, shown with heavy equipment parked nearby. A fragile 19th-century church is shown in satellite images 50 meters from extensive earth-moving operations.

”

Alaexis_¿question? 06:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

First source is entirely based on twits by various Armenian bloggers, and has no dependent confirmation. But damage to the angel sculptures (modern addition, not historical heritage) on the church in Shusha is very questionable. Independent bloggers come to totally different conclusions [35] [36] Video footage shows that angel figures had their heads attached on 8 October, but footage from 13 October shows them without heads, and Azerbaijan took control of the city on 6 November. So who removed their heads? As for the second one, it is also an Armenian/pro-Armenian source, which despite claiming neutrality reports only damage to the Armenian heritage, completely ignoring massive damage to the Azerbaijani heritage. That obviously causes serious doubts about its impartiality and reliability. But in any case, the article you quote confirms a known fact that the church was hit by a missile. There are much better sources on that. Grandmaster 14:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

What makes you say that Cornell University's Caucasus Heritage Watch project is "Armenian/pro-Armenian"? Or rather, which reliable sources have called them pro-Armenian? Alaexis_¿question? 16:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

To my knowledge, they have not attracted attention of third party sources yet. But the fact that they only report the damage to the Armenian sites while completely ignoring much bigger damage to the Azerbaijani ones shows obvious bias. Where have they been for the last 28 years, when Azerbaijani sites were destroyed, and why they became active now, showing only one side of the story? One would expect unbiased researcher to document any damage, and not the damage only to one of the sides to the conflict. The reason for the bias might be that their team is mostly ethnic Armenian. [37] But as I said above, if you propose that source to document the missile strike to the church, there are much better sources. Grandmaster 16:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I haven't read their report, only the article. Maybe there they have more examples. I should say that I don't agree with your approach to the sources. Them not reporting on other things doesn't make them unreliable. Maybe they are biased but WP:RS specifically says that biased sources can be reliable. Alaexis_¿question? 20:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I would say that biased sources can be used, when their evidence is corroborated by other sources. We have similar projects from Azerbaijani side, documenting destruction of Azerbaijani monuments by comparing Soviet era and present day photos of the monuments. I think such evidence is undeniable, but use of such sources causes objections from some users here. Another example, you can see above that well-known Iranian-French photo journalist Reza Deghati also documented some of the destruction in his Instagram: [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] His photos grace covers of prominent international publications: [43] But I was told that he is biased, therefore not acceptable. But his photos are undeniable evidence of destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage. The question is, do we use such sources on both sides, or not? Grandmaster 08:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

There is a difference between an instagram account of a photographer (who is not a subject matter expert) and a report published by a prestigious university. Alaexis_¿question? 09:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

But it is not a peer reviewed scholarly publication or something of the sort. It is just a project on a university website. Their sponsors are also quite telling. [44] As for Instagram, Facebook etc postings by Deghati, he documents in his photos the destruction much better than satellite images posted by that project. You can see close up the evidence, and compare the modern day condition of a monument with the original condition. Plus, those photos were shared by many news outlets, but mostly in Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 13:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I've looked at the dashboard and in fact there are other damaged buildings in Shusha. I think we need an RfC to get outside feedback on the reliability of this source for the claim that several objects of Armenian cultural heritage were damaged in the wake of the 2020 war. Alaexis_¿question? 16:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but not just on this one. Also on other sources, from both sides, documenting cultural heritage destruction. I checked their "dashboard", and could not find any mention of damage to 17 mosques of Shusha. As if they never existed, or do not have any historical or cultural value. Grandmaster 17:31, 28 October 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.[45][46][47]

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)

Who says he isn't? He's mentioned in most Armenian and Azeri sources. You've only proven a small handful of nitpicked sources that do not specialize in the subject neglect to mention him. --Steverci (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed above. If he is mentioned in both Arm and Az sources as involved in building the fortress, then it should be presented as such. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 04:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Do they constitute "most sources", as we currently write? Once again, the only source currently used in the lead to support the "attributing this to an alliance between Panah Ali Khan and Shahnazar, the local Armenian prince (melik) of Varanda" claim is Raffi who was a writer, not a historian. If you wish to demonstrate that reliable sources mentioning Shahnazar in that regard are in majority (as our lead says), then do so. Otherwise this fails WP:V, WP:Attribution and WP:DUE. Brandmeister^talk 09:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The alliance is mentioned by Raffi, Joseph Emin, Adigozal, Javanshir, Bakikhanov, and de Waal. The Brockhaus and Islam encyclopedias neglecting to mention shows, if anything, that they are sub-par sources for this subject. --Steverci (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Raffi is not suitable for this, he was a novelist. De Waal meanwhile says: "It was founded ... by Panakh Khan, the new Muslim feudal lord of Karabakh, who made a dynastic marriage alliance with ... Shahnazar". That does not mean Shusha's establishment itself is attributed to the alliance. It's a separate part of the sentence, De Waal explicitly says it was founded by Panakh alone. As do historians Vadim Leviatov ([48]), Dmitry Petrushevsky ([49]), etc. So, once again, we should reflect sources correctly and, if anything, separate them from other opinions. Brandmeister^talk 08:57, 27 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: [50] 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 ([51]) 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 ([52]) is an odd incomplete copy. If it was going to cite something, it should cite [53]. 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" [54] [55]. 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 [56]. 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 [57] 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: [58] 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,[59] 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)

Claiming the entire city was destroyed is undue. We can't put this much weight on a random undergraduate making an over-generalization. --Steverci (talk) 20:53, 21 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: [60] 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)

@Chipmunkdavis: I went ahead and updated the lead, as discussed. Now we need your assistance with sorting out the issue with destruction of cultural heritage, which is discussed above, in the section Destruction of cultural heritage. Both sides accuse each other of cultural vandalism, but the lead only mentions alleged destruction of Armenian monuments. What would be the best way to present this? Grandmaster 14:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Both sides accuse each other of cultural vandalism... no, the Eurasianet confirmed Azerbaijan is destroying cultural monuments. This is a WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Steverci (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

It would be good to explain this revert: [61] Grandmaster 15:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Jr8825 recent edit [62], and mediator Chipmunkdavis seem to have agreed with a more generalized text which Jr8825 addressed. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Moving forward, it would be best practice for specific wordings of potential changes to be brought up on the talk page so that they can be direcctly commented on. Whatever the merits of the new formulation, please do not suggest I agreed with a wording I had not previously seen. CMD (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

There hasn't been any objection to a more general text, so I would say we can move ahead here. – My bad Chipmunkdavis, your comment was made just after Jr8825's more generalized solution, and you suggested moving forward. Probably an esl thing from me to assume. Do you personally object to that edit or not, just to be clear? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@ZaniGiovanni: I don't think that's what was agreed. Jr8825's edit is a general mention of destruction during the conflict, while as I understand Chipmunkdavis agreed that the city was "mostly destroyed by the end of 1992". I see no mention of 1992 in your revert, and you removed a reliable source that was used as a reference. Grandmaster 16:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I was asked not assume other people's rationales, I'll advise the same for you. I'll rather wait for editors to speak themselves for their edits. I personally think a more generalized solution is better, just to be clear. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Generalized does not mean that there should be no mention of when or by whom the town was destroyed. The readers should not guess, they need to know. Grandmaster 16:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

There are lots of ways to skin a cat, but the particular way we end up using should be discussed here. It would be helpful if everyone could present any changes they think would be useful with specific wording on the talk page, along with the reasoning behind the changes, before boldly editing.

Commenting on the specific diff addition, the new edit replaces the general impact of the early war, which is what I was referring to, to a general summary of literal decades. These are not the same levels of generality, and while we are just discussing a single sentence here, this sentence does take place within the broader lead context. In terms of structure without touching on the specific content, generalising away 1992 makes the recentism in the last couple of sentences even more obvious. Thus it does not seem that useful outside of a broader restructure (and such a restructure would probably need a new discussion).

So far, my general bulleted statements received little feedback. It would be helpful to know if such broader thoughts are shared. On specifics, the wording that has been suggested and tweaked here is what ended up as the edit "and most of the city was destroyed". Given this as a starting point, what are the ways that wording may not fully suit, and what are some possible changes that could be made? CMD (talk) 17:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification. I think it should be clear for everyone now what you meant. I think 1992 destruction was simplified as much as it was possible, and 80% estimate was dropped. I don't think it could be made any more shorter and more general. Regarding your other points, the city of Shusha has a relatively short history. It was founded in 1752, was a capital of Karabakh khanate until Russian takeover of the region, and grew in population, which at the turn of the 20th century was about 43,000, until ethnic clashes started in the region. Should we provide in the lead detailed statistics of the population for different periods, or keep it general? And one important event is missing. Shusha made its mark in the history of the Middle East region, because it was besieged by Iranian ruler Agha Mohammad Shah Qajar, who failed to take it from the first attempt, and who was eventually murdered there. Indeed, I think there is a bit too much focus on the more recent events, and less on other periods of its history. I think some other improvements could be made, once we finally move ahead from the present impasse. Grandmaster 18:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

The problem at the end of the day is that all these formulations rely on the passive voice because the sources themselves are not all that up to snuff. "Shusha was destroyed," "the population was expelled," etc. We have only a handful of sources (De Waal, etc.) that speak to any degree of agency, and even then we're not talking about some groundbreaking document or revelation but interviews or an individual's assessment based on a brief visit (as opposed to, say, a survey or some sort of systematic examination of the town after the war). Interviews themselves are not such great primary sources to go by - people have many reasons to lie or dissemble to their interlocutors. A cursory glance of the town is also not enough to pass muster. Who's to say the destruction the town suffered wasn't because of the degree fighting that took place there until its capture in 1992. Do we have on the ground witnesses from that time that report on what state the city was in when Armenian forces captured it? After all, even Ghazhanchetsots Cathedral is seen in photographs in near-abject ruins after the Armenians captured Shushi. This is one time when extraordinary sources are required and, sadly we have to admit, they're are almost none available. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

There's plenty of photo and video evidence of what the town looks like after 28 years of Armenian control. And also, Armenians themselves, including their military commander Ter-Tadevosyan, told de Waal how they set the town on fire. Why would they collectively lie? Shusha is a small and little known place for most people outside of the region, and it does not attract a lot of visitors and researchers, and it certainly did not during the Armenian control. Therefore one cannot expect abundance of sources on the situation in the town in the last 28 years. But those that are available are unequivocal. The town was ruined after its capture by Armenian forces in 1992. Grandmaster 19:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, I propose to add information about the fate of Azerbaijani cultural monuments. Muth 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. Photo evidence that I posted above also shows that almost every Azerbaijani cultural or religious monuments is in ruins. Since we mention alleged destruction of Armenian monuments (with no scholarly source to support the claim), I don't see why destruction of Azerbaijani monuments should not be mentioned, considering that Eurasianet also writes about that: 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. So my proposed wording, to keep it short: 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, including Azerbaijani cultural and religious monuments, was destroyed. Thoughts? Grandmaster 07:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

If this discussion is going to shift to wider issues such as the fate of Azerbaijani cultural monuments, I think it would be best to close this so conversation can be kept within one location. On MarshallBagramyan's point, there is no inherent issue with the use of passive voice. The WP:MOS notes it can help in just this sort of situation, where we might risk making "certain-sounding conclusions from uncertain facts". CMD (talk) 09:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree, we should move on to the relevant section, where we had our previous discussion on cultural heritage. Grandmaster 13:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Of course what voice we use matters and our wording matters! How can you contend otherwise? To say that they were expelled refers to an active effort to physically uproot and remove a population. To say that they fled means that they left on their own volition (albeit under duress). So which is it? What was the size of Shushi's civilian population prior to its capture? How many had already left before because they feared getting caught in the fighting? How many were physically taken hold of and expelled? I have stuck out of the discussions on this page, but let me reiterate for the record that the threshold we are using for our sources leaves much, much to be desired. Nearly none of the authors being cited are historians, or scholars who have physically visited and extensively examined the places they are writing about. Grandmaster is perplexed as to why individuals would seek to present a certain story to an interviewer. There are plenty. Sources must be critically examined (I'd suggest Akram Khater's Sources in the History of the Modern Middle East, pp. 1-6 in case you need a reference). Much of the discussions don't go anywhere because the wrong arguments are being put forth by both sides, but it's also quite disappointing to see the slipshod manner the "consensus edits" are being rammed through here. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I see no evidence that those Armenians who talked to de Waal, including their military commander, were somehow forced or felt obliged to falsely describe in vivid details how they set Shusha on fire. If you have a source to support that claim, please provide it here. Otherwise we cannot make any guesses about motives of the interviewees. Yes, sources are limited, but we have to work with what we have. We have much less sources on destruction of Armenian cultural monuments, only Eurasianet is more or less reliable. Yet I don't see people objecting to the mention of destruction of Azerbaijani monuments (which is well supported by all kinds of photo and video evidence) to object to sourcing of those claims. Sources on the events on 1920 are even more scarce. Yet we have no problems with describing those events. I see no reason for obscuring or omitting the information of evident mass destruction of the city in 1992. I mean, the city lies in complete ruins after 28 years of Armenian control, but we should make no mention of that, or how it happened? Impossible. Grandmaster 22:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

My comment was pointing out there was no inherent issue to using the passive voice if beneficial. I do not see how that contends against the idea that "what voice we use matters and our wording matters". On edits being "rammed through", I have avoided commenting on that sort of issue, but as it is raised, this section is primarily concerned with a sentence fragment that was edit warred out following the expiry of a short page protection (which I requested for a different edit war). My hope was that not discussing this might facilitate discussion over edit warring, but it appears they carry on simultaneously. On that note, it seems all parties here link the sentence fragment concerned with the wider topic of the final lead paragraph. If that is the case, given discussion in this section has focused on the fragment and not the larger text, I would like to close this, and suggest renewing the broader discussion above or opening a new section. CMD (talk) 05:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I think we can move on to a broader issue of claims of cultural vandalism. The fact that most of the town is destroyed is obvious and undeniable, there is no point in arguing about it any further. I suggest we move on to the section above concerning the condition of the religious and cultural monuments in the city. Grandmaster 07:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

It’s the word of a single individual by an author who has been widely accused of distorting the statements of his interlocutors. Or his random assessment of the town’s destruction based on a brief visit to the town. Honestly, it is quite baffling to me that we have to consistently take the word of a journalist with no prior background in history, politics, anthropology, or the sort (but in Russian, of all things) over far more qualified experts like Vicken Cheterian, Ohannes Guekjian, Arsene Saporov, and others. You don’t have to “work with what you have” when that work has been demonstrated by others to fix the fact around the author’s own personal biases. That’s not how you write history. His work may have been the only accessible source 20 years ago, but since then dozens of authors have superseded him by coming out to write better studies on the history of the region and even disprove some of his more brazen and careless claims.

With regards to the fate of Armenian cultural heritage in Azerbaijan, you and I both know quite well why it receives the coverage that it does. Caucasus Heritage Watch is one of those organizations that is actively monitoring the ongoing destruction of Armenian churches and cathedrals because it is all so blatantly done for the world to see. That Azerbaijani statues of historic buildings may have suffered neglect or, at worst, vandalism may be true, but without identifying the clear agents and ideas motivating that policy (Azerbaijani state policy vs. a handful of individuals?/weather?/plain neglect?), it all remains speculation. That’s something both you and CMD should take note of when considering the wording because there is indeed a difference between being expelled and having fled (it’s inherent in just the way those words are constructed). I don’t like the way it’s being conducted here and I will edit the page to that effect. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 06:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

When exactly was de Waal accused by distorting anything? His work only received praise from the international scholarly and journalistic community, and the only ones who were not happy were Armenian nationalist authors. Those you list all present Armenian POV. We should stick to third party authors. Caucasus Heritage Watch is a project run by Armenians. It covers exclusively damage to the Armenian monuments, and turns a blind eye to the vandalism of the Azerbaijani ones. The fact that the city was ruined in 1992 is obvious, and undeniable. Whether it was done by orders from Armenian authorities, or by individuals, is immaterial, what matters is the fact of destruction. And it is attested not just by de Waal, I quoted other sources too (Muth, Eurasianet, etc). And there are photos that I posted above. I think this discussion is not going anywhere. The city lies in complete ruins after 28 years of Armenian control, and you propose to ignore that obvious fact. I don't think that is acceptable. Grandmaster 08:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Claptrap. His works have been the subject of widespread ridicule and criticism for the better part of two decades in reviews and on the sidelines of international conferences. Please tell us how someone who briefly covered the Caucasus before going to write his book on Nagorno-Karabakh, with a bachelor's degree in the Russian language to his name suddenly becomes an authoritative source? He doesn't even hold a Ph.D. to even count as a senior fellow.

Your inference that anyone who would dare criticize his work comes from an "Armenian nationalist background" is complete and utter nonsense. Black Garden for one makes extraordinary claims often on the basis of the shoddiest of sources (an interview, the omission of a detail, etc.). Just a few months ago, a group of scholars sent a letter to the Carnegie Foundation for his repeated attempts to distort the history of the region and sanitize the Azerbaijani state's ethnic cleansing policy. Take a gander at the list of signatories and tell me with a straight face that all of them are "nationalists." And no, Caucasus Heritage Watch is not "run by Armenians." What an ludicrous comment. I've been telling you this for 15 years now, but I guess I have to repeat it one more time: that is not how sources work. Its run by professors from Cornell and Purdue universities, which counts for far more than the authors' backgrounds. Muth is not a specialist of the region and Eurasianet is a...well, just a tiny news outfit. You're right that the conversation is not going anywhere but not for the reason that you may think. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 09:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Again, all Armenian/pro-Armenian (by their own admission). Not a single neutral criticism. Show me at least one source with no connection to either side to criticize de Waal. And you are free to take it to WP:RSN, if you think he is unreliable. Sources need to be third party, and I do not see that Caucasus Heritage Watch is such a source. It is not just their background, but also the fact that they only report the damage to the Armenian cites, and completely ignore much bigger damage to the Azerbaijani ones. And check another eyewitness account I just posted. So many different sources say the same thing, and you keep denying the obvious. Grandmaster 09:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

And by the way, that letter you mention, is written in the worst traditions of Soviet era, when collective letters were written to punish a writer or scholar for expressing a dissenting view. The authors admit that they are "a group of largely Armenian scholars, lawyers, and journalists". They are not happy with de Waal's conciliatory approach to the Armenian genocide issue, which has nothing to do with Karabakh. If they are indeed reputable scholars, why would they write a collective letter, instead of publishing a review of de Waal's work in a peer reviewed scholarly journal? Obviously, because no one would publish such nonsense. They say that Carnegie rejected their criticism, and accuse it of "think-tank tribalism". Why this should be taken seriously? In any case, as I said, this belongs to WP:RSN, not here. Returning to de Waal's account of his visit to Shusha, his estimate of 80% is even understated. Other sources say that Shusha was completely destroyed, nothing was spared. And I still don't see why Armenian witnesses he spoke to would collectively lie to him, including the Armenian military commander who was in charge of the operation for storming the town. And once again, de Waal is just one of the sources on destruction of Shusha. Grandmaster 12:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Btw Marshall, the Eurasianet article isn't even about Azeri heritage destruction, it only has a passing mention of it, which obviously isn't enough to be used. On contrary, it mostly covers Armenian heritage destruction, so there is that. This was already said above but I'll quote, "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". ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Who says that passing mention is not sufficient? Is there such rule? It is just one of the sources confirming destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage. Grandmaster 12:12, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Here's another eyewitness account from 1993 that proves the town was completely destroyed:

A few kilometres across the Azeri-Armenian border and up the twisting, pockmarked single-lane road to Nagorno-Karabakh, the formerly Azeri town of Lachin, after which the corridor is named, sits nestled among the steep inclines. As the town comes into closer view, it is clear that the destruction is absolute. No building, no home, no school, not a bus shelter has been left unscarred. In the doorway of one house, behind its overgrown front garden, a pair of shoes signals the former occupant's rush to flee an oncoming army.

......

Leaving Lachin, the road enters Nagorno-Karabakh itself. The route is barren and unspoiled except for the debris of past battles. Rusting, dismembered tanks and trucks dot the roadside to Shusha, the next big town, an hour's drive away. Once a prosperous textile manufacturing centre of 40,000 people, 90 per cent of them Azeri, Shusha has been reduced to rubble. Women carry pails of spring water through the broken streets. Children play on the heaps of crumbled apartment blocks. The all too familiar sights of burnt and shattered buildings and homes are everywhere. [63]

Grandmaster 09:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

And another source:

Shusha, near Stepanakert, illustrates the problem. Once one of the most charming places in the Caucasus, it is now a ghost town of gutted buildings and overgrown graveyards. Its Azeri population is gone. Many inhabitants are Armenian refugees from Azerbaijan, living wretchedly in what remains of ransacked apartments.

"Small war, big mess; Nagorno-Karabakh." The Economist, 20 November 2004

Grandmaster 20:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

De Waal has a history of distorting interviews to suit the narrative he wants to push, such as how he has been accused of doing in a Serzh Sargsyan interview. He cannot be considered a trustworthy third-person source for other people.

There is no information on the web of who this "Daniel Brock" is or what any of his credentials are. The second source doesn't make any mention of deliberate destruction caused after the battle. --Steverci (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

De Waal posted a full transcript of the interview, and proved that his quote of Sargsyan's interview was accurate. And you can explain yourself at WP:DRN now, it is being formally mediated there, and you are one of the parties, who was invited to explain his position. Grandmaster 08:20, 26 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[64] 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.[65] 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)

RFC on Foundation of Town

Which of the following should be used as the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lede section, concerning the foundation of the town? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 - Most sources date Shusha's establishment to the 1750s by Panah Ali Khan, founder of the Karabakh Khanate, coinciding with the foundation of the fortress of Shusha. Others attribute this to an alliance between Panah Ali Khan and Shahnazar, the local Armenian prince (melik) of Varanda.
• Option 2 - Most sources date Shusha's establishment to the 1750s, coinciding with the foundation of the fortress, attributing this to an alliance between Panah Ali Khan, founder of the Karabakh Khanate, and Shahnazar, the local Armenian prince (melik) of Varanda. (This is the existing wording)

Enter Option 1 or Option 2, followed by a brief statement, in the Survey. Do not reply to other users in the Survey. Back-and-forth discussion may be conducted in the Threaded Discussion section. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Survey (Foundation of Town)

• Option 1. For sources on foundation of the town, please see User:Grandmaster/Shusha. I collected them in one place for convenience. I think it is obvious that most sources do not mention alliance, it is the point of view of some of the sources. Some sources state that Melik Shahnazar recommended the place for the town/fortress, but being an advisor is not the same as the alliance. Therefore it makes sense to present both versions separately. Grandmaster 08:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 As I thoroughly explained at Talk:Shusha#Alliance?, option 2 is synthesis, where the second part of the sentence starting with "attributing this" is not supported by sources cited in the first part. The sentence should be split to match cited sources per WP:Verifiability and WP:Due weight. Brandmeister^talk 11:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1, incorporating Jr8825's comment below. I've reviewed sources mentioned in the discussion above (including Hewsen) and the ones listed on Grandmaster's page and I think it's a fair summary. Alaexis_¿question? 17:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 Of all the sources listed in User:Grandmaster/Shusha, there are 10/14 that are referring to the fortress. Only 5/14 also refer to the founding of the town/city, and they are all either Azeri or Islamic sources making that claim. It's only natural that the sentence more properly reflect this, because there are many sources confirming the town/city is much older. The town/city itself being founded in the 1750s has much weaker due weight. There can also be no doubt about the significance of Shahnazar, who is mentioned in both Armenian and Azeri sources, and even the most modern source of Thomas de Waal, who refers to the relationship as an alliance. --Steverci (talk) 02:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2, Shahnazar is mentioned in both Armenian and Azerbaijani sources, De Waal also calls it an alliance despite usually being pro-Azerbaijani. As already pointed out above, most of the complied sources by Grandmaster about 1752 founding are only referring to the fortress. I would like to emphasize that Vasily Potto (one of the outside sources) differentiates between the fortress and the town. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion (Foundation of Town)

• Do sources tend to mention the founding of the fortress as related to this event? If so, which ones? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  Please see my comment above, I collected sources in one place for convenience. Originally the town was built as a fortress, on top of a plateau, and served as the capital of the Karabakh khanate. Grandmaster 08:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  Grandmaster, I can't find the list of sources, can you point to the exact location? Alaexis_¿question? 13:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  Found it, never mind. Alaexis_¿question? 13:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  Ok. I will repost the link here as well, just in case. The sources are available at User:Grandmaster/Shusha. Grandmaster 15:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  Vasily Potto, Abbas Qulu Aqa Bakikhanov, Raffi, Tim Potier, and Arsene Saparov are only referring to the fortress. --Steverci (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  Steverci, can you provide sources that discuss the founding of the town as distinct from the fortress? Or which explicitly say the town existed at the time the fortress was founded? Alaexis_¿question? 08:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  It was a fortress town that eventually grew bigger and bigger. That is how many cities were founded, there is nothing unusual about it. But it was not just a fortification, because Panah Khan settled there population of Shahbulag and other towns and villages, as is evident from the sources. So it was more like a big settlement surrounded by defensive walls. It is a typical town/city layout for those times. Every town needed to have fortress walls to defend itself. Grandmaster 14:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  And saying that Potto only talks about the fortress is clearly wrong. In fact, Potto says: "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". As for de Waal, he does not say that the town was built in alliance with someone. De Waal says that Panah Khan "cemented his position by a marriage alliance with one of the five Armenian meliks". This concerns not the foundation of the town, but political actions. Grandmaster 14:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  Alaexis apparently Steverci is tbanned now, so I'll try to answer your question. It's the Vasily Potto source from Grandmaster's list, he only says the fortress. He only points out what a mosque inscription says, but he doesn't verify if that's true. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  What difference does it make if it was fortress or town? Both were founded by Panah Khan. And Potto refers to the inscription on the mosque for a reason. If he did not believe it was true, he would not quote it. There is a reason why the town was initially called Panahabad, i.e. city of Panah. Grandmaster 13:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  Or maybe he differentiated because he doesn’t find that the town being founded in that year as credible. He’s just informing what the Azeris claim. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  Why should he differentiate? Fortress and town are the same thing. Most cities and towns in the Caucasus were fortress towns. In fact, due to frequent wars a major settlement could not exist without city walls, and every large settlement had them. Baku, Ganja, Sheki, Erivan, Derbent, etc, all of them had strong fortifications. So yes, Shusha was a fortress and a town, both at the same time. Grandmaster 19:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  I didn't know we count original thought as valid arguments. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

  I'm just pointing out the fact that Potto does not make any difference between the fortress and the town. But anyone can read and decide for himself. Grandmaster 10:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

  In addition to your fortress OR claims, even both "Azeris and Armenians" don't support the 1750 founding. Shahen Mkrtchyan one of the most expert historians on Artsakh/Karabakh states that it's much older. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

  That is a nationalist type source. We discussed him in another thread. Grandmaster 13:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

  What reliable source(s) describe Shahen Mkrtchyan as a "nationalist"? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

  Mkrtchyan was 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. How can we take seriously a person writing books about non-existent genocide in Nagorno-Karabakh? He is not just partisan, but extremely partisan. Grandmaster 18:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

  I asked for a reliable source that describes him as a nationalist, which you claimed earlier. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  His own works are the best source. Grandmaster 08:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  Not really. You're making BOLD claims with no backing up or reliable sources stating that. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  We don't need reliable sources to see that a person writing "Nagorno-Karabakh: Anatomy of the Genocide Committed by Azerbaijan" is an extreme nationalist author. The rules do not require that we provide sources on someone's bias, we need to do our own evaluation. Nationalist sources could be used in a certain context, for example, to illustrate nationalist POV, but not for statements of controversial facts. For that, we need reliable third party sources with reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Grandmaster 15:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  We don't need reliable sources... um, yeah you do. And Mkrtchyan wasn't just an "author", he was a prominent historian awarded the Order of St. Mesrop Mashtots. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, in Armenia. Does he have any global recognition? I can cite Azerbaijani scholars that have been awarded orders in Azerbaijan. Does it make them reliable sources? Grandmaster 19:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  Shahen Mkrtchyan has published academic works and has been cited by international authors; [66]. Shahen Mkrtchyan has been cited by Edinburgh University Press book, University of Michigan source, and University of Utah ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• I'd prefer a third option, "some/some of these/a number attribute" (rather than "others attribute"), as the sources which do mention Shahnazar are a subgroup of the ones which mention Panah Ali Khan. I think "other" runs the risk of downplaying Shahnazar too much by presenting the sources as outliers mutually exclusive to the ones which mention Panah Ali: the number of sources that do mention Shahnazar indicates he was likely part of the story surrounding the fort/town's foundation by Panah Ali, the question seems to be more about whether he played a direct role at all or was simply a background figure, a local ally with no involvement (notably, no sources explicitly say he didn't acquiesce or advise, and it seems to have been on his historic land?). The sources mentioning Shahnazar are varied and numerous enough not to be a mistake (I count 3 on Grandmaster's page of sources, including Abbasgulu Bakikhanov, a notable Azerbaijani historian, plus there are more sources discussed further up this page, such as de Waal name-dropping him an an ally), even if they are a fewer than the ones that do not mention him. Jr8825 • Talk 12:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  I agree with your assessment of the role of Shahnazar. Many primary sources mention that Melik Shahnazar was a person who advised the location, but only Raffi says that Shahnazar and Panah built it together, i.e. were in equal position. But Raffi's position is a minority view, because it is quite obvious that Panah Khan was a dominating, leading figure, and Shahnazar was his subordinate, a local ally, but not with equal power. Secondary sources mostly do not mention Shahnazar, because it was Panah Khan who built the fortress and town. Grandmaster 14:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

---

I just noticed that Raffi wrote that Panah chose "the site on Shahnazar's private property." Are there sources which confirm/contradict it? Alaexis_¿question? 14:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

No, Raffi is the only one making the claim. But Raffi is the least reliable of sources. He was a playwright, not a historian, and he was not a Karabakh native either, unlike other chroniclers. Grandmaster 15:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I was under the impression there were other sources for this (I remember Armenian sources in particular being critical of the prince for effectively letting Panah into NK by involving Panah in his conflict with other princes and allowing him to construct the fortress). I can't remember whether the other sources are explicit or not, quite a lot were collected in the above discussion so it might be worth checking there? Jr8825 • Talk 15:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I haven't seen any other source that would say Shahnazar owned the land. But there are sources that say people of Shushakend village owned it. But then again, this is also a minority view. Grandmaster 17:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Alaexis Jr8825 Azeri historian Adigozal bey writes that Shushi was founded "advice and direction of [Melik-Shakhnazar]". Another Azeri historian Bakikhanov also wrote that Shahnazar chose the site. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, some sources say that Shahnazar advised the location. But it is not the same as building something in alliance. Grandmaster 17:10, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

It was Shahnazar's property. Azeri sources admitting Shahnazar provided the location seems to confirm that. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

RFC on Destruction of Town

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Snowball closure: there is consensus against singling out Azeri cultural heritage sites in the destruction. This is not a contest of whose heritage got worse off. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

---

Which of the following should be used as the second sentence of the fourth paragraph of the lede section, concerning the destruction of the town? Robert McClenon (talk) 12:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 - After the capture of Shusha in 1992 by Armenian forces during First Nagorno-Karabakh War, the city's Azerbaijani population fled, and most of the city was destroyed, including Azerbaijani cultural heritage sites.
• Option 2 - After the capture of Shusha in 1992 by Armenian forces during First Nagorno-Karabakh War, the city's Azerbaijani population fled, and most of the city was destroyed. (This is the existing wording)

Enter Option 1 or Option 2, followed by a brief statement, in the Survey. Do not reply to other users in the Survey. Back-and-forth discussion may be conducted in the Threaded Discussion section. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Survey (Destruction of Town)

• Option 2 Destroyed is destroyed. All contents may be assumed to have suffered the same fate. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 The lead of the article makes specific mention of destruction of Armenian monuments (sources to support the claim need separate discussion). But Shusha has a great number of Azerbaijani monuments, including historical mosques, houses of nobility and cultural figures, museums, monuments, etc. I believe this needs a particular mention, because the present version leaves an impression that only Armenian monuments were affected. Grandmaster 15:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 per my rationale in the discussion below. Jr8825 • Talk 16:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2. The other option gives the impression that all (or most) of Azerbaijani cultural monuments were destroyed. This is clearly not the case, as the sources on Grandmaster's page attest ("Azerbaijani religious monuments of historic significance ... were either destroyed or are left in disrepair"). If all of them were destroyed none of the photos on the same page could have been made. Alaexis_¿question? 17:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2, per Jr8825 below. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)
• Option 2 (invited by the botNo case has been made for special emphasis on Azerbaijani cultural heritage sites, which is what that specific inclusion would be. North8000 (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 Eurasianet has already confirmed that the Republic of Artsakh had not deliberately destroyed cultural monuments in three decades to the extent Azerbaijan has in one year. There are no reliable sources that cultural monuments were specifically targeted, and thus no need to highlight them. --Steverci (talk) 02:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2, During/after the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, videos of vandalism and deliberate Armenian heritage destruction by Azerbaijani forces were rampant, here just a few self-documented by Azerbaijani forces themselves [67]. We also have articles covering it like the Eurasianet one, going in much detail. There isn't the same coverage of Armenian forces deliberately or specifically targeting Azeri cultural monuments. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 - because, as Laurel said, 'destroyed is destroyed'. Any cultural sites destroyed can and should be documented in the proper sections below, but there is no need to single out specific sites in the lead when the destruction of the city is noted. I do find whether or not the sites were 'specifically target[ed]' is not relevant to this discussion. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 13:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 - Destruction of most of the town implies that most of what was in the town- IE cultural sites- was included in the destruction. Unless the aggressors specifically made a point to target cultural sites, Pointing out that they destroyed them would be POV- it would be adding weight through implication- and that is not neutral. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2021
• Option 2 It would be implied that the cultural sites wold be destroyed, any reason why they need to be called out specifically? Tepkunset (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion (Destruction of Town)

What is the justification for option 1? To me it sounds as if all (or most) of Azerbaijani cultural heritage sites were destroyed. It's clearly not the case - see the collage in the infobox. Alaexis_¿question? 13:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Please see User:Grandmaster/Shusha destruction for sources on destruction of the town and cultural monuments. I also presented a photo gallery to illustrate how the monuments look after 28 years of Armenian control. Also, it is not proposed to write that every monument is destroyed. Armenian authorities renovated the biggest mosque and declared it "Persian". But everything else is in ruins. It is proposed to write that most Azerbaijani monuments were destroyed. Grandmaster 15:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• I think we should stay away from adding more detail about cultural destruction, as it detracts from the overall lead (which already devotes more than enough space to the modern conflict) and should be adequately summed up in a more neutral statement about general destruction, unless there are good sources which indicate due weight for it (i.e., they explicitly say that Azerbaijani cultural sites were specifically targeted in a major way, that has had a significant impact on the town's history/features). I haven't seen these sources put forward so far (please point to them if they're hidden somewhere in the walls to text above) – all I've seen are photos, which are primary sources and don't indicate weight for inclusion in the lead by themselves (we need secondary sources talking about deliberate cultural destruction). I understand that Azerbaijani editors may want to include such a statement because there's a sentence about Armenian heritage being destroyed. I have a few points to make regarding this. Firstly, trying to "equal" the other side is not a good way of approaching things (and not supported by policy), it simply causes the conflict to spill over into the article, to its detriment. Secondly, the weight of sources does appear to be different – I've seen a collection of sources discussing the recent alleged destruction of Armenian heritage, but haven't seen many about the destruction of Azeri heritage. I'd encourage editors who think this balance is wrong to examine the sources discussing the alleged destruction of Armenian sites carefully (a number are international sources – are they written by independent groups, or are they written exclusively by Armenian authors/have hallmarks of bias?) Thirdly, I'd prefer to remove the sentence on Armenian destruction, and reduce the paragraph to a broad, summarising sentence, but when I mentioned this in one of the above discussions it didn't seem to pick up much support. I'd be willing to open that discussion again.

TL;DR: I don't think we should add any more accusations about one side's cultural vandalism unless there are clear, strong sources demonstrating due weight, especially since it seems like an attempt to equalise the accusation of destruction against Azeris which is already in the lead. I think we should be having the opposite discussion, how to reduce this existing accusation of one specific side's cultural vandalism into a neutral, summarising sentence encompassing destruction by both groups during the conflict. Jr8825 • Talk 16:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The very first source at User:Grandmaster/Shusha destruction (Sebastian Muth) provides details of Azerbaijani cultural heritage destruction. There is also evidence of British journalists who witnessed how Armenian soldiers used minarets of a historical mosque as a shooting target. In addition, we have lots of Azerbaijani sources that attest to destruction of cultural heritage. Regarding damage to the Armenian cultural heritage, there 5 Armenian sources, all of which are partisan and none of which could be considered reliable, that are used to support the claim of destruction of the Armenian heritage. The only third party source is eurasianet, but it also mentions destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage. So I don't understand why the article lead can contain a mention of Armenian heritage destruction with reference to partisan sources, and nothing on the much larger wholesale destruction of Azerbaijani heritage that is supported by third party sources, such as Muth and same eurasianet? Grandmaster 17:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The sources on Armenian cultural heritage destruction:

1) "Armenian Foreign Ministry Decries Azerbaijani Mutilation of Shushi Ghazanchetsots Cathedral". hetq.am. Why Armenian foreign ministry is a reliable source, and Azerbaijani foreign ministry is not?

2) "Mayor on Shushi Museum of Fine Arts sculptures' removal: Azerbaijan wants to turn area into football pitch". news.am. Why news.am and Armenian mayor are reliable sources?

3) "Armenian St. John the Baptist church in Shushi vandalized". en.armradio.am. Public Radio of Armenia. Again, how is this a reliable third party source?

4) "В уже азербайджанском Шуши у старого армянского храма исчезли купола". eadaily.com (in Russian). This Russian source only quotes the Armenian ombudsman, clergy and bloggers.

5) "Vandalismus: Bombardierung der Schuschi Kathedrale". dearjv.de (in German). This one is weird. It is Deutsch-Armenische Juristenvereinigung e.V., i.e. some sort of a union of German-Armenian lawyers. How is this a reliable source?

I don't understand why sources on destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage are subject to a more scrutiny, when pretty much anything goes as a reference for Armenian heritage destruction claims? I agree that cultural heritage destruction claims should be removed from the lead altogether. Grandmaster 17:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

This is what Azerbaijani foreign ministry has to say about cultural heritage destruction in Shusha: [68] I think it should also be included for balance, since Armenian foreign ministry is used as a reliable source with no attribution. Reza Deghati, photographer for National Geographic, was also a witness of cultural vandalism: [69] Grandmaster 18:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Dude, are you seriously still wondering why the word of a government that goes out of its way to deny not only the heritage of the people who've been living there for at least two thousand years, arguing that the Russians "brought them to the region in 1828," but also unabashedly leveling entire cemeteries and cathedrals is still not considered a reliable? It's apples to oranges. While one may question what happened in a few isolated incidents, you can't in good faith compare it to a state-wide policy that engages in Armenophobia and obsessively tries to erase any trace of the people who once lived within its now current borders. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

What 2000 years? Shusha exists since 1752. And almost complete destruction of the entire town of Shusha, and 7 occupied districts around NK is certainly not an "isolated incident". I think we should keep it to the topic. And regarding sources, both Armenian and Azerbaijani sources are partisan. The question is, should we use them, and if yes, then how? But the logic that we can only use sources from one side and not the other is not in line with Wiki rules. Grandmaster 18:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I support Jr8825's notion that we can convert the lead's lop-sided accusations into a neutral summary. With that in mind, I suggest adding something like "During the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the city's cultural heritage has been largely destroyed or left in disrepair" and remove all finger-pointing from the lead in that regard. Brandmeister^talk 22:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I am talking about the reason why Azerbaijan's MFA cannot be trusted to even report a weather forecast. We place such a higher threshold for sources coming from it or any other official Azerbaijani source because of its propensity to fudge or otherwise distort the history of this region. No, Armenian sources aren't perfect either, but at least there are actual well-respected scholars who support and vouch for what they say. So again: Azerbaijani sources =/= Armenian/Western sources. It's a false parity. How hard is that to understand? Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 09:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, while I'm open to the possibility of reducing the lead sentence about cultural destruction following the recent war, that needs to be a separate discussion. This RfC is about adding an extra sentence on cultural damage of Azerbaijani monuments (I oppose the change since quality sources haven't been brought up to support it) and a more complicated reword is beyond the RfC's scope. We need to have a proper discussion of the sources which discuss damage to Armenian sites before we move to reduce coverage of the allegations/reword it. Steverci has brought up a strong source regarding damage to Armenian sites above (the eurasianet.org article; incidently, Steverci, it doesn't disprove the allegation that Armenians neglected/damaged Azerbaijani heritage following the 1st NK war, it doesn't explicitly say that didn't happen – we should be careful not to read too much into something it doesn't mention). I'm pretty confident I remembering seeing a number of international sources voicing concern about cultural damage following the recent war which aren't currently being cited in the lead, so it's not wholly limited to Armenian sources, as Grandmaster suggested above. Any changes should be guided by the sources, and there's no rush. Jr8825 • Talk 03:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Eurasianet wrote this: 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. I also don't think that this supports the claim that Armenians did not deliberately destroy Azerbaijani cultural and historical sites. There are witnesses of how Armenian soldiers were shooting at minarets of Shusha's mosques, and that is certainly not an accident. And the fact that practically every Azerbaijani religious and cultural monument lies in ruins also speaks for itself. It does not happen naturally, unless there was an earthquake or other natural disaster, and there was none in the past 30 years. Grandmaster 08:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

It's a throwaway remark by a very non-specialist source. You're going to have to try much harder to argue for inclusion of your edits. For everyone's future reference, we can consult Caucasus Heritage Watch, an authoritative page run by highly esteemed Western art historians and archaeologists, to verify some of the more extraordinary claims regarding the fate of cultural art in the region. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 09:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

That "throwaway non-specialist source" is so far the only more or less third party source on alleged Armenian monument damage as well. As for Caucasus Heritage Watch, it has serious neutrality issues. Somehow it only reports on the damage to Armenian sites, paying no attention to the damage to Azerbaijani sites, which might be explained by its sponsorship by Armenian diaspora: [70] Grandmaster 10:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you are unable to produce better sources, but that's no excuse to try to argue that that article somehow holds the same weight as specialist sources. It's problematic and falls short of reliable source requirements. Caucasus Heritage Watch is reporting on damage to Armenian sites...because Azerbaijan is presently going out of its way to destroy every cemetery, memorial, church, and historical monument that it cannot fit within its pseudo-scientific state-sponsored historical narrative. And yes, Cornell and Purdue...the true bastions of the Armenian Diaspora. Keep grasping. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

The fact is that every Azerbaijani memorial, mosque and cemetery has already been destroyed or severely damaged during 28 years of Armenian occupation. Shusha or Agdam are good examples. Here is another source, that describes ethnic cleansing of Azerbaijani territories, mass destruction, illegal settlement of Armenian population, and in particular, destruction of an Azerbaijani cemetery in Shusha, which has a direct relation to this article:

After taking over most of Karabakh the local Armenians, backed by Armenia proper, overran seven surrounding districts, brutally driving hundreds of thousands of Azeris and Kurds from their homes before looting and burning them to create a buffer between themselves and the rest of Azerbaijan. It is into this dereliction that Armenians are now moving to live.

Most of them have moved into Lachin, the district which links Karabakh with Armenia. But Mr Goukassian acknowledged that settlers have also been trickling into Kelbajar, from where 60,000 Azeris and Kurds were expelled over high mountains in winter by an Armenian offensive in 1993.

......

In Shusha, in Karabakh, another town which had a largely Azeri population, Armenians say the two ancient mosques are 'Persian work'. Asked how many people lived there before the war, the mayor, Mels Akopjanian, said: 'Honestly, I don't know.'

Here, too, incoming and returning Armenians are busy roofing and painting the scorched blocks of flats and half-ruined homes left by the fighting. Gravestones in the Azeri cemetery on the edge of town have been methodically smashed and vandalised.

"To the victor the spoils: Ethnic cleansing in Azerbaijan: James Meek reports from Lachin on the Armenian refugee takeover of Azeri homes and farms in the Nagorno-Karabakh enclave and adjoining districts." The Guardian, 9 June 1997, p. 11.

I believe destruction of cemeteries also counts as cultural vandalism. Coming to Caucasus Heritage Watch, this source would never report any vandalism to Azerbaijani cemeteries. The reason is the conflict of interest. If you take money from one of the sides, and most of your employees represent their diaspora, then you have a special interest. He who pays the piper calls the tune. But I believe we are going to discuss Armenian sources separately, as Jr8825 proposed. Then we can evaluate each one of them individually, and ask for outside opinions. Grandmaster 19:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for raising The Guardian article. It confirms what I suspected from the primary sources. We need to look for other similar secondary sources about the 1990s and add this content into the article body before we're able to determine if there's significantly stronger relative weight for Armenian cultural destruction, or whether we should opt for a broader sentence implicating both sides in the lead without going into detail about one side being worse (which seems like the most likely outcome to me). Caucasus Heritage Watch (CHW) is indeed the other international source about destruction of Armenian sites I was thinking of earlier, thanks for reminding me. It's associated with a prestigious US college, and although I admit I harboured suspicious about possible bias when I saw it last time, it looks like it's produced by a joint team of Armenian and international scholars. I think it's a reasonably looking source (others' thoughts welcome). One thing to take into account is that the technology for holding Azerbaijanis to account for cultural destruction wouldn't have been present following the first NK war, but that doesn't mean CHW's work isn't valid.

To be honest, WP:RFCBEFORE wasn't properly done for this discussion, although that's largely because the previous threads on this were unproductive/didn't focus on sources. Are either of you willing to open a separate thread so we can discuss the sources covering destruction of heritage? As for the broader discussion above, it's going off-topic. Neither side is blameless, both are victims and perpetrators to varying degrees. Let's keep things collegial and focused on the sources, and not go down the rabbit hole of arguing which side is worse. Jr8825 • Talk 19:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that neither side is blameless, even though some have hard time admitting it. I agree with starting another discussion about sources on cultural vandalism. I believe every source needs to be discussed individually, to form a consensus whether it is acceptable or not. Some sources are on the brink of being considered partisan, imo. We briefly discussed Caucasus Heritage Watch, and you think that since they used modern technology they could be considered reliable. But how about another source who uses photography to document vandalism? Reza Deghati is a world famous photographer, his photos grace covers of National Geographic and many other top publications. [71] He documented the developments in the region in 1990s and now, so he has photos to compare the condition of the monuments before and after. He posted many of his pictures on social media: [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] Posts on social media could be used in certain circumstances. Do you think Deghati could be used as a source? Grandmaster 20:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

C'mon Grandmaster, I'm sure you're aware they're not the same. One source is WP:SELFPUB by a non-expert (and even if he were a subject matter expert, photos are primary sources – we don't write content based solely off images, you can't cite a photo for important claims because there's always the risk of manipulation, and we as editors would be at risk of SYNTH/OR in our interpretation of the photos). The other is funded by two highly respected universities, and includes three professors on its team. It's safe to presume both sources are to some degree partisan, but only one is reliable despite being non-neutral. Jr8825 • Talk 20:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

It is not just photos, but also textual descriptions. But anyway, thanks for your opinion. I will search for more print sources on this topic. Grandmaster 20:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Grandmaster: I was having a closer look at Caucasus Heritage Watch, and you may be interested in page 19 of the September report, which says that they're in the process of cataloguing damage to Islamic sites in NK since the 1st NK war, with a view to establishing when past damage took place. It may be useful to see how that project develops. Despite the partisan funders, I've been impressed by the output I've just been reading from CHW, and I sincerely hope the project develops further in the non-partisan direction it's promising to. Jr8825 • Talk 20:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

To tell the truth, I'm highly skeptical about their work. They had 28 years and full access to the territory, but showed no interest in Azerbaijani or Islamic sites. What happened now that they have suddenly become interested? Probably it is just an attempt to make themselves look neutral, but I won't be surprised if all the monuments become "Persian" in a region with no Persian population. I note that they describe as a damaged site Taza Mahalla Mosque in Shusha, and while they admit that it was formerly a mosque, they present it as a Geology Museum. Obviously, it is not an appropriate location for a geology museum, and Azerbaijan will not use it as such. So it is kind of strange that they present it as a museum, and not as a place of worship. Also, one of the project members Lori Khatchadourian tried to give strange justification to vandalism and complete destruction of occupied Azerbaijani territories, which makes me doubt her impartiality: [77] Grandmaster 21:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

It was founded in 2020, following the recent war. There are several other academics involved – basically I haven't seen anything to indicate it isn't a reliable non-neutral source, at a minimum. Jr8825 • Talk 22:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

That's the point. Why was it created only in 2020? Was there no need for such a project before 2020? In any case, I respect your opinion, and I would like to take your advice and create a new thread where we can discuss sources on damage to the Armenian heritage. Would that be Ok? Grandmaster 23:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Sources on Armenian heritage destruction

I repost this from the above section. I think we need to discuss reliability of sources on destruction of Armenian heritage. These 5 sources are used as references:

1) "Armenian Foreign Ministry Decries Azerbaijani Mutilation of Shushi Ghazanchetsots Cathedral". hetq.am. Why Armenian foreign ministry is a reliable source, and Azerbaijani foreign ministry is not?

2) "Mayor on Shushi Museum of Fine Arts sculptures' removal: Azerbaijan wants to turn area into football pitch". news.am. Why news.am and Armenian mayor are reliable sources?

3) "Armenian St. John the Baptist church in Shushi vandalized". en.armradio.am. Public Radio of Armenia. Again, how is this a reliable third party source?

4) "В уже азербайджанском Шуши у старого армянского храма исчезли купола". eadaily.com (in Russian). This Russian source only quotes the Armenian ombudsman, clergy and bloggers.

5) "Vandalismus: Bombardierung der Schuschi Kathedrale". dearjv.de (in German). This one is weird. It is Deutsch-Armenische Juristenvereinigung e.V., i.e. some sort of a union of German-Armenian lawyers. How is this a reliable source?

Why the above sources should be considered reliable third party on this subject? Grandmaster 16:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion. The sources used in the article aren't ideal, so I think we should focus our discussion on the stronger ones that have already brought up above. Caucasus Heritage Watch is the main source that needs to be discussed here, as it's the main originator of research/evidence/claims of Armenian cultural heritage destruction. It has also been cited/led to stories picked up by international media outlets with good reputations such as Eurasianet.org and Le Monde. Also, are you able to find other sources about destruction of Azerbaijani heritage? The Guardian article was an excellent start – do you have access to historic newspaper archives or do you need me to search for them (I'm busy, so it may be a while until I get round to it). Jr8825 • Talk 22:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

We have Sebastian Muth, who describes destruction. Also, another Guardian journalist witnessed how Armenian soldiers were shooting at minarets of mosques in Shusha. I included in the article a source on destruction of cemeteries that you mention. I have an access to some databases, but if you have time and desire, any help in search of new sources would be appreciated. Grandmaster 08:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I removed the sources on Armenian heritage destruction that I listed above. None of them could be considered reliable third party. Grandmaster 08:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Eurasianet article added back, in your own words; "only Eurasianet is more or less reliable". Will take a look at others later. For now, I see no reason why we shouldn't include the German one as well, it mostly uses self-documanted vandalism directly from Azeri soldiers, and those kinds of videos from Azeris weren't some EXCEPTIONAL stuff, they were rampant during/after the war. What do you think Jr8825? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, eurasinet was deleted by me by mistake. I do not object to its inclusion. The German one is not reliable. According to the rules, the sources need to be reliably published, this source has no reputation for fact checking and accuracy. And only one video posted there is related to Shusha, showing aftermath of a missile strike on the church, but there are much better sources on that. Grandmaster 09:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

No worries Grandmaster, we all make mistakes. But you have to be honest here: All these videos from Azeri soldiers were proudly being uploaded on TikTok and Instagram during the war, that website just happened to collect them in one place. How a self-documanted Armenian heritage destruction from multiple Azeri soldiers isn't reliable? Those are one of the most solid proofs out there. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

We have photo and video evidence of destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage in Shusha as well, but we cannot use it as reference. As for those videos, only the first one is related to Shusha. But as I explained, it was reported in major news outlets, better to use those. And it was not a deliberate attack, at least Azerbaijan denies that it was. The rest is from other locations. The church with a soldier on top is from Jabrayil, for example. I see no value of that source to this article, plus some lawyer association is not a reliable source. When someone like HRW verifies the authenticity of videos, such investigation could be considered reliable. Grandmaster 09:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Another thing is that we have so far 2 reports on Armenian heritage, that is not multiple, I would say. Multiple implies many more. And those 2 sources report not destruction, but rather questionable renovation efforts. I think wording needs to match what the sources say. Grandmaster 09:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Added HRW source showing deliberate attack on church, it's not just “questionable renovation”. Restored Hetq source, as it's reporting the same thing a third-party source already confirmed. Word multiple (meaning - having or involving several parts, elements, or members) is appropriate here. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Hetq source is Armenian Foreign Ministry. Clearly not a reliable source, it represents the Armenian government POV. Could be used in the article to present the official position of Armenia, but certainly not an independent source on destruction. As for HRW, it does not say it was deliberate, but says it is possible, and it needs investigation. Also, the word "destruction" is not appropriate. Nothing was destroyed, the church still stands. Grandmaster 17:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Wording is correct based on sources, church isn't the only thing being attacked or “renovated”, destruction happened. Regarding HRW:

• International humanitarian law, also known as the laws of war, requires warring parties to distinguish between civilian objects and military objectives at all times. Attacks directed at civilian objects that are not used to commit hostile acts or are otherwise not military objectives are prohibited and may constitute a war crime. Warring parties are also required to respect cultural property and special care must be taken to avoid damage to buildings dedicated to religion and historic monuments. They must not be attacked unless imperatively required by military necessity.
• Serious violations of the laws of war committed with criminal intent – deliberately or recklessly – are war crimes. Governments have a duty to investigate allegations of war crimes by members of their armed forces or forces on their territory and to fairly prosecute those found responsible.'' ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Church was not destroyed. It still stands, but there is a hole in its roof. And HRW does not say that Azerbaijan did it, it says that it suspects it was a deliberate attack, and calls for investigation. And other sources also do not say that there was a destruction. Eurasianet only questions church renovation. How is this a report on destruction? Same with CHW. And why did you restore Armenian Foreign Ministry? How is this a reliable source on anything other than the official position of Armenia? Grandmaster 09:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, please do not remove the information from The Guardian. It is one of the most authoritative news outlets, and can be used for statements of facts, per WP:NEWSORG. Grandmaster 09:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources The Guardian is listed as "generally reliable", so yes, no question about reliability. Brandmeister^talk 09:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Where did I say Guardian "isn't a reliable source", that you claim here? Why are you reverting me with subpar reasoning? I didn't say Guardian isn't a reliable source, I said both are articles from 90s and too close to the subject. Both are random quotes taken from the article and cannot be verified, hence WP:PRIMARY.

And btw, "methodically smashed and vandalised" is editor's point of view. How journalist's personal characterizations like "methodically" are even used in the article? That's not NPOV, that's again, editor's point of view.

Don't spin my words and change subject, I'm specifically saying nothing about these two random quotes from sources too close to the subject can be verified educationally, hence WP:PRIMARY, quote:

• "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved"
• "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.".

And when I say destruction, I don't mean just the church. Caucasus Heritage Watch confirms other destruction as well like cemeteries/etc, and another like you said "more or less" reliable source Eurasianet even cites them. And Hetq source says what third-party sources already stated, that's why I resorted it. I'll ping outside editors whom you also asked advice in the past from.

Jr8825, LouisAragon what do you think about the recent edit restored by Grandmaster, and does it have a place in the article? Please see my explanation as to why it's WP:PRIMARY given the context and them being random unverifiable quotes too close to the subject. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Guardian is not primary, it is news, which could be used for statements of facts, per rules. Journalists described what they saw. If Armenian Foreign Ministry simply repeats what others say, what is the point in having it in the article? Eurasianet mentions a CHW report of destruction of a cemetery, but not in Shusha, it was in Taglar village in Hadrut. With regard to Shusha, Eurasianet makes no claims of destruction. So how do these 3 sources support the claims of multiple reports on destruction? Destruction of what exactly? Grandmaster 10:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

This is what Azerbaijani cemeteries in Shusha look like: [78] You can scroll through the gallery and see the photos of ruined Azerbaijani cemeteries, destroyed graves, scattered bones. British journalists saw the process that resulted in this. If we use Armenian Foreign Ministry, we can use AZERTAC as well, I think. Grandmaster 11:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

You understand that cherry-picking what you like from an article and presenting it as a fact is disruptive, right? HRW quite directly accuses Azerbaijan and cites Armenian and non-Armenian witnesses as proof. Here are two quotes from the article confirming HRW accusation:

• “The two strikes on the church, the second one while journalists and other civilians had gathered at the site, appear to be deliberate,” said Hugh Williamson, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “These attacks should be impartially investigated and those responsible held to account.”
• “However, multiple factors indicate that both attacks were directed at the church. The remnants found indicate that the weapons used were capable of being directed at a specific target. The two strikes struck the same part of the church roof, with no more than two meters difference between the point of impact. This substantially reduces the possibility that less precise weapons were used, given their inability to achieve such a high degree of accuracy over two strikes. Additionally, Human Rights Watch is not aware of any additional reports of strikes in Shushi around the church at the time of these attacks, suggesting that each attack was a single strike.” source

Your assessment that Eurasient is only reporting a “renovation”, cherry-picking and leaving out major context, is wrong (again). Eurasient concludes erasure of Armenian heritage:

• “It is the most overt case thus far of Baku’s intent to manipulate the heritage of the territory they now control again after winning the war with Armenia last year.” source

If Armenian Foreign Ministry simply repeats what others say, what is the point in having it in the article? – Why we shouldn't include the Hetq.am article if we have 3 reliable sources confirming its content? In cases like this, when information is confirmed by 3rd party sources, it's a perfectly fine inclusion. On the other hand, you're trying to use this non-issue as a way to somehow add AZERTAC gallery/article and circumvent just recently held clear community consensus for NOT including, quote: "Azerbaijani cultural heritage sites" in the lead sentence. Your continual failure to understand this, by again and again trying attempts to circumvent a clear community consensus when even a week has not passed, will result in you being reported. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@ZaniGiovanni: The Guardian is fine as a source, the additions appear in the relevant section of the article and seem to be neutrally summarised. Two different articles are used to support two short factual statements, so there's no problem there as far as I can see. Also, it looks like you've misunderstood the consensus above – it was against singling out Azeri heritage destruction in the lead as things stood, it definitely doesn't justify excluding well-sourced information in the article body. Returning to sources about destruction of Armenian heritage, I don't think the dearjv.de source looks strong, so I'd stick to HRW and CHW (and sources based on CHW's research, such as Eurasianet and Le Monde) – all are workable sources, and there are likely others too. Now we've identified these sources, the next step is to settle on a neutral summary of their content. So what would be good now is if you could dig through the articles and pull out the most relevant quotes for us to paraphrase/summarise. It's better stay away from the official government sources of both sides – frankly neither side's government can be trusted (to different extents, since Armenia's is a bit more transparent, but official sources from both sides in this conflict should only be used to supply information about their respective positions on issues, not for facts/evidence about issues themselves). In this case it's irrelevant – if there are 3 other sources for a claim as you say, there's absolutely no reason to include the foreign ministry as a source, just use the others! Let's all stay WP:COOL and avoid commenting on other editors. Jr8825 • Talk 15:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)