Talk:Shusha/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

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[1] 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.[2] 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)

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: [3] 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 ([4]) 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 ([5]) is an odd incomplete copy. If it was going to cite something, it should cite [6]. 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" [7] [8]. 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 [9]. 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 [10] 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: [11] 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,[12] 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: [13] 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: [14] Grandmaster 15:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Jr8825 recent edit [15], 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. [16]

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)

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.[17][18][19]

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 ([20]), Dmitry Petrushevsky ([21]), 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)