Talk:Shusha/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Shusha / Shushi

Take a look at the "palace of Khurshidbanu Natavan" postcard in the article. The caption is in Russian and French. The Rusian spelling is "Шуши", ie. "Shushi" not "Shusha". I had a look at several more postcards, and they also have the Shushi spelling. The "Ruins of the Armenian quarters of Shusha" postcard also uses the "Шуши" spelling. However, there is something suspicious about that "Ruins of the Armenian quarters of Shusha" postcard - part of the postcard's caption has been removed by someone. Why? Tamamtamamtamam (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you actually speak Russian? A Russian speaker would not make a comment like the one above. The postcard says Шушинский ханский дворец, which does not mean that Russians called the city Shushi. Шушинский just means that it is located in Shusha. In Russian language the ending of the word changes depending on the mood. For instance Шуша - Шушинский, Баку - Бакинский, etc. See Russian cyclopedias, Brokhaus: [1], Great Soviet: [2] for what the city is called in Russian. Grandmaster 05:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I looked at those postcards. It says "Видъ г. Шуши N 7", "Видъ г. Шуши N 20", etc. It is clear that Russians used to call the city Шуши = Shushi. Grandmaster do you actually speak Russian? -Սահակ/Sahak (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, Grandmaster surly knows not Russian, as he judges others. It is good to think so and continue assuming good faith in him rather than that he tries to falsify the sources and the reality.

The names of places with an ending "A" looses it when changing the cases etc. Examples: the name of the city "Varna/Варна" changes into "Varnskiy/Варнский", not "Varniskiy/Варниский" or "Varniyskiy/Варнийский" or "Varninskiy/Варнинский"; or Smyrna "Смирна" changes into "smirnskiy/смирнский", and not to "smirniskiy/смирнский" or "smirninskiy/смирнинский" etc. Aregakn (talk) 12:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Photo uncertainty

We have the caption "Ruins of the Armenian quarters of Shusha after the anti-Armenian pogroms in March 1920" for this photo [3]. However, in Shahen Mnkertchian's book "Historical-Architectural Monuments of Nagorno Karabagh", Yerevan 1989, the same view is described as a photo from circa 1910 showing the Armenian districts in the aftermath of the 1905 massacres. Meowy 15:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I am going to change the photo caption to reflect what the cited book says the photo shows. There is no source to support the current "Ruins of the Armenian quarters of Shusha after the anti-Armenian pogroms in March 1920" caption. Meowy 16:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

File :Armenian House in Shusha in Nagorno Karabakh, 1873, by Louis Figuier (1819-1894) contains mislead information. Firstly there was no such concept as Nagorno Karabakh in 1873 Secondly, The painting is known as "Зал в доме татарина в Шуше" in Russian, (English version is: Hall of Tatar's house in Shusha) painted by Russian battle painter Vasily Vereshchagin in 1865 y. in Shusha. http://www.bpclub.ru/index.php?app=blog&module=display&section=blog&blogid=32&showentry=170 Vasily Vereshchagin's paintings are mostly related to Ottoman-Russian wars , Russian war campaigns in Caucasus and Central Asia. He personally was in Shusha in 1865 where he was witness of religious ceremony of Muslims in Shusha. http://www.hrono.ru/proekty/rg/rg_092004.html Another important thing is the interior design of house, please pay attention the Mihrab in the middle-end of the hall. Mihrab shows direction of the Kaaba in Mecca and hence the direction that Muslims should face when praying. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mihrab,_Umayyad_Mosque.jpg Thus, this painting makes more questions relating this house to Armenian one.

Taking into account these facts I keen to think that the painting made by Vereshchagin and related to Tatar's house in Shusha dated to 1865 y.St albany (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Settlement infobox content

Infoboxes are meant to contain facts and statistics, mostly current facts and statistics: we have the town's current mayor and its current population, for example. So it is correct to give the current name of the province in which it is located. Meowy 20:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The city being a de-jure part of Azerbaijan is not wishful thinking, it is a fact. You cannot remove the info about location in a real state and keep info about province of an imaginary state without any recognition. --Grandmaster 16:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Infobox content is not a matter of opinion, whether it is your opinion, Azerbaijan's opinion, or some lawyers' opinions - for example, the name of the mayor is given, a position Azerbaijan would not recognise, the coat of arms is given, a motif Azerbaijan would not recognise. Meowy 17:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not an opinion, it is a fact that Shusha is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan. Facts need to reflected. Provinces of a non-existent state "NKR" are not a fact, they are an opinion. The real fact is that the region is annexed to Armenia. --Grandmaster 08:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Armenia has nothing to do with this. --Golbez (talk) 09:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

And neither has Azerbaijan. The settlement infobox should contain brief facts and statistics about the town, not POV opinions. Shushi is a town in the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, it is in the republic's administrative province of Shushi, its mayor is Karen Avagimyan, its elevation is 1,800m, its 2005 population census is 3191. All that is factual content. Meowy 16:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Azerbaijan certainly has something to do with this. Perhaps what should be done is splitting out an article on the Azeri sahar of Shusha, but then we'd also want to split out an article on the sahar of Khankendi. I am not necessarily proposing these; I don't know how big the storm would be but I don't think it'd be fun. There'd be a lot of duplication, I'd think, so that wouldn't be a good idea. Maybe something can be worked out. --Golbez (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Why have 2 articles? It is better to have 2 infoboxes in this article. It is done in other articles. --Grandmaster 17:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Grandmaster, wait for the end of discussion. Shushi is more than 17 years have nothing to do with Azerbaijan, it is the reality. Even it's international recognition as a part of Azerbaijan is very dubious. As far as I know all the countries support the negotiations on Karabakh status (under the OSCE Minsk group) which means Shushi's status is under discussion too. You say "it is a fact that Shusha is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan" then how many international doc's we have supporting this view? Even the US senate is very diplomatic in this issue.. Andranikpasha (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The article clearly says in the lead that Shusha is de-jure a part of Azerbaijan, it has a template of Azerbaijani rayons at the bottom, and yet you remove the info that it is a center of Azerbaijani rayon from the infobox. Isn't it strange that you are edit warring to remove from the infobox the info that can be found elsewhere in the article? We do not need your original research, all the leading countries of the world and international organizations recognize NK as a part of Azerbaijan. De-jure status of the city needs to be reflected as well, especially considering that the world does not know a country named "NKR". Grandmaster 15:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The world dislikes racism and denial of etnic self-determination rights, not the name of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. So except of your nationalist remarks, how many international doc's we have recognizing Shushi as a part of Azerbaijan? Andranikpasha (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I quoted plenty of documents on talk of NK article. But let's look at it from a different angle. How many countries have recognized "NKR" as a state? None. No recognition = no de-jure state, which means that NK remains de-jure a part of Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 17:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of the settlement infobox to add inaccurate or POV content and exclude legitimate content seems to be widespread in Wikipedia. For example, the misuse of the infoboxes for settlements in Northern Cyprus has gone beyond all bounds of reasonableness. Similar problems are present on articles for Abkhazia. I think it is yet another indication of weak administrator control. It is correct to say that every such extensive or long-lasting problem within Wikipedia is administrator created because they alone hold the powers to set fixed guidelines but they seem to lack the intellect or the courage to confront these problems and work out some guidelines. Instead, like the pathetic little bullies they are, the prefer to show off to their peers by banning editors who are merely trying to live within this administrator-created anomie. Meowy 17:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, I can't imagine why the few administrators who regularly pay attention to this stuff might feel burnt out by the constant bickering between people who have no vested interest whatsoever in these conflicts. The fault lies not in the stars, but in yourselves. --Golbez (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

We didn't invent the settlement infobox, we didn't make the guidance about its use vague and unsatisfactory, creating an environment and a set of issues that invite edit warring. And we didn't let this state of affairs drag on year after year, affecting a great many articles. I am speculating that maybe administrators like things as they are - it doesn't tax their little minds and the editing conflicts give them lots of excuses to swing their banhammers about. Meowy 03:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I think regular old users designed the infobox. A lot of them also drafted guidelines. But you're on to me. I just sit here and watch the bickering because I get off on the power trip. That's it. You've got me pegged. I personally have tried for years to keep things civil and fair on these articles, but yeah, I guess I'm just another crappy administrator who just wants to see the whole thing burn. --Golbez (talk) 03:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Admins are not superhuman. We're just like you. We're flawed. So, if you have any suggestions on how to resolve this, please express them, instead of just screaming "It's the admins fault! We can't possibly get anything done without them!" --Golbez (talk) 07:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - not "super". I think your attitude is revealed in your language - things like "this stuff", "constant bickering", "these conflicts", "these articles" - it is one of contempt and indifference. Meowy 02:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If I were indifferent I would not be present. My contempt for the petty fighting nationalists do on Wikipedia is no secret, nor should it be; it's entirely contemptible. --Golbez (talk) 04:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, but you ahve to realise that "this stuff" is just as important as any other "stuff" on Wikipedia, "these articles" are just as significant as any other "article" on Wikipedia, "these conflicts" are as legitimate and important as any conflict on Wikipedia, and washing your hands of the geniune and important issues involved by trivialising them, through the use of phrases like "constant bickering" and "petty fighting nationalists", is not helpful. Meowy 03:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Hmm. Andranikpasha blocked for revert parole vio again...if this is going to continue to be an issue, I suggest just removing the infobox entirely and incorporating the data into the body of the article. I hate the things, mostly because they're useless for conveying complex information, which is why we don't have them on composer biographies. That's certain a better solution than having two infoboxes, or, worse yet, forking the article. Moreschi (talk) 11:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is seriously talking about having two articles! The settlement infobox exists to be placed into articles about settlements. The point I was trying to make to Golbez it that it should be administrator responsibility to set in place (or at least encourage discussion about) clear guidelines that will ensure consistancy across articles. Consistancy will minimises the possibilities of edit wars. Good guidelines and methodology could be worked out on non-controversial articles and then applied to controversial ones by citing the examples of the non-controversial articles as precedents. But you are actually arguing against consistancy by saying that this article, alone amongst articles about settlements, should not have a settlement info box. Meowy 03:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, personally, I would be happy to ensure perfect consistency across all Wikipedia articles by having no infoboxes whatsoever. IMO they serve little purpose in needlessly duplicating and over-simplifying article content, and the aesthetic benefits are non-existent. At any rate Wikipedia is under no pressure to be uniform in all regards: the biographical box is supposed to be used for all biographies, but it damages composer articles, so we don't have them there. There is no reason why the settlement box should be used for all settlements if it is causing more problems than it solves. Moreschi (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Golbez - I have reverted your edit. You changed the map caption from the neutral "in Nagorno-Karabakh" caption (which was Wikilinked to the region of Nagorno Karabakh, not the N.K. republic) to "in Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan", which is POV as well as perverse (since Azerbaijan does not distinguish between Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan). I have also reinserted the facts that the town is in the Nagorno Karabakh republic, and that it is part of the republics Shushi province. Simply to state "rm all potentially controversial sections" is not a legitimate reason to remove content. Are you alleging the content is inaccurate? Meowy 03:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It is also a sahar of Azerbaijan. This must be mentioned, either in the infobox, in a second infobox, or in a second article. If neither of these is fulfilled then the least common demoninator was created. What is your suggestion for including that? --Golbez (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean "it is also a city of Azerbaijan"? I hope you are not wanting to make this article into the same parallel universe type-crap that is found in all the Republic of North Cyprus articles. There may not be a single Greek left living there, but if you were to go by the laughable Wikipedia articles about that country, everything there now is exactly as it was in 1973. My understanding of the purpose of the settlement infobox is that it is there to provide a concise, at-a-glance summary of key statistics, such as a town's location, population, administration, coat-of-arms, official website, etc., etc. It is not there to list imaginary provinces or imaginary names created by a country that has no actual control over that town. Meowy 21:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If I had a nickel for every time someone on here called one side in this conflict imaginary, I'd be able to buy the whole country. And yes, it's there to provice a concise summary, and in the absense of consensus, I will remove all that is disputed. The mayor is not disputed. The population is not disputed. The location, apparently, is, due to being claimed or run by two imaginary countries who are being defended by wikipedians who, in my guessing, have an imaginary interest in the whole conflict. --Golbez (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you disputing that Shushi is a town in an entity that calls itself the Nagorno Karabakh republic and forms part of that entity's Shusi province? If not, removing that content would be nothing more than a case of I don't like it. Meowy 23:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, but on the other hand, did you notice this article is located at Shusha, not Shushi? Think about that for a moment. --Golbez (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I had presumed that the article was called "Shusha" because that was the most common form in English. If it is not the most common form, or if there are only a few examples of it in any form in English-language sources, then it should be called Shushi because that is what its inhabitants call it (a similar discussion took place on the Stepanakert talk page [4]). I think I might have let my familiarity with the region get in the way, presuming that Shushi/Shusha was a notable enough place to have had lots of mentions in English-language sources. It probably does not - after all, even the article for a place as notable as Tbilisi is not called "Tiflis". Meowy 00:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

And now Meowy violated his 1rv per week parole to remove the info about Shusha being internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan. This is not acceptable. I hope admins will sort out parole violations. As for the issue, I don't think that the infobox must reflect only the Armenian position. Whether someone likes it or not, NK is still internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, and Shusha is a center of Azerbaijani rayon. This must be reflected in the infobox too. --Grandmaster 08:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not violate any 1rv parole. But if you want to pursue it, I'm sure that you will know of some slimy administrator whose thin skin I have pricked in the past and who can twist things to suit his/her desire for revenge. Meowy 20:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the revert parole violation either, but Meowy, really....Moreschi (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't really be that much of a really if you knew that an administrator had already done exactly that - twisted my 1rv restriction to exact a block as revenge for his pricked ego. Meowy 00:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It's probably better if I don't know just how you pricked his ego, isn't it? Moreschi (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

He had ownership issues. I edited one of the articles he felt he owned, he went out seeking revenge, armed with the weapons (administrator powers and status) to take it. He claimed that I was allowed to make only one revert on any Wikipedia article per week - it is that that Grandmaster is probably hinting at. Meowy 01:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Getting back to the issue, the disputed status of the town is already made clear in the introduction section. it is my position that a settlement infobox is there to give a concise summary of key statistics about a settlement. The Azerbaijani administrative "rayon" does not exist in reality - it administers nothing, so it is not a statistic. Meowy 01:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

And important part of statistics is that the city is internationally recognized as a center of a district in Azerbaijan, and its population was ethnically cleansed and lives in tents as refugeees. And I see that a group of users is trying to obscure this fact, and remove very important info from the infobox. This is not gonna work. Grandmaster 07:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That is not a statistic, it is a claim. The rayon of Shusha does not exist except on Azerbaijani paper - it has no functioning administrative authority over the territory of Shusha. Meowy 16:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a fact, not claim. The only internationally recognized administration of the city is Azerbaijani. No one recognizes "NKR". Rayon exists in exile, in is governed by its administration, elects deputies to the parliament, etc. --Grandmaster 07:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I have wondered if Shusha had a significant government in exile. Can you source this? (PS, no, it's not governed by any Azeri, but they can claim to) And also, we aren't talking about the rayon here, that's a separate article; we're talking about the sahar. --Golbez (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

We are talking about the on-paper-only rayon - I was responding to Grandmaster's "Shusha is a center of Azerbaijani rayon. This must be reflected in the infobox too" comment. Nobody from an Azerbaijani rayon named Shusha administers anything in Shushi. So it is a fraud to make such a claim in the settlement infobox. Meowy 17:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Shusha is still de-jure a part of Azerbaijan, not legally non-existent state of "NKR". And Shusha does have a government in exile, and the Azerbaijani mayor of the city is also the leader of the Azerbaijani Karabakh community in negotiations. And yes, Shusha is the administrative center of Shusha rayon. The city is internationally recognized as such only. The claims of "NKR" province have no recongniction, the elections in NK are considered illegal by the Council of Europe. We cannot present illegitimate government as the only existing. The situation is much more complex. All aspects of it must be properly reflected. Grandmaster 07:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The claim that it is "administrative center of Shusha rayon" is the claim of the government in Baku. The status of NK is disputed. NK has a fully legitimate government. The text should reflect an unbiased, NPOV position, not Azerbaijani nationalist views. Moonvise (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Grandmaster, I find myself unable to accept your statements in good faith if you surround the name of the other side in quotes. Unrecognized? Yes. But you forget that Azerbaijan itself agreed to the Line of Control, it's not like that appeared out of nowhere. On one side of it is Azerbaijan. On the other side... is an uncontrolled wilderness? No. You must be able to accept to use the term Nagorno-Karabakh Republic without sharing scorn for it. If you cannot do this, then I cannot accept your arguments in good faith, as you would be demonstrating a lack thereof. As for "present illegitimate government as the only existing," sure we can. We do it in Myanmar. Hell, we do it in Stepanakert. We do it all over the place. After 15+ years, the de facto starts to outweigh the de jure. I believe the proper phrase is "Deal with it." Also, it is the only government operating control over the city in question; I asked for evidence of a significant government-in-exile and you have not yet supplied that. If you cannot then the only government of this city is Karabakhi, and must be noted as such. Note, Meowy, this applies to both of you - please stop referring to the other as 'imaginary', as it adds nothing and it's just a convenient way for both of you to insert your biases into what should otherwise be a civil discussion.

I again think back to a possibly parallel example, the Confederate States of America. Had that conflict lasted 15 years, and no recaptures taken place, would we still say Atlanta was a city in the United States, and that the CSA was imaginary? Perhaps some closedminded people would, but the rest of us would have accepted Confederate control over the city and state, and gotten on with our lives.

Tiraspol, I note, omits any mention of province from its infobox. Perhaps we should do the same here and rely on text to adequately express complex information; that's what text is for. Infoboxes are for simple information, if it cannot be easily expressed there it should be passed on. However, the map caption should say Azerbaijan because the map clearly is a map of Azerbaijan and not just Nagorno-Karabakh or the NKR.

Moonvise is correct, I think. It's inaccurate to call Shusha the administrative center for the rayon of Shusha, as no administration is taking place there. If Shusha rayon is being administered in-exile, such a thing needs to be sourced and stated. We can say Azerbaijan regards it officially as a sahar, and an administration center, but obviously the facts on the ground outweight what Baku says.

All this said, moving on with this conflict, I am thinking about submitting a move request from Shusha to Shushi. I don't believe the English language has a particular preference for one over the other, certainly no preference strong enough to overcome local fact. The local authorities have clearly renamed the city. Perhaps then Shusha can be a disambiguation page explaining the Azeri sahar and rayons, which would gain even more weight if Grandmaster can supply a source for a significant government in exile.

I pray for the day when some resolution to this conflict is decided and perhaps everyone - including me - involved in this pointless proxy war on the Internet will realize just how much time and energy they wasted for nothing. --Golbez (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Basically, the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic exists. It exists regardless of recognition. It exists because it is the only authority over the land which Azerbaijan has, for the moment and since 1994, surrendered. To continue to claim it does not exist is bad faith, and any such arguments should be discarded. --Golbez (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

In addition, Shusha and NK in general is governed by a principle of international law known as uti possidetis, which beats the various non-binding statements of PACE and other groups. Moonvise (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

If it does exist as state, then why even Armenia does not recognize it? The fact remains that the region is occupied by Armenia, which stations its troops there. Again, we cannot ignore the fact that the international community recognizes the place only as Azerbaijani province. See here, the local authorities are considered illegitimate by the international community, because the native Azerbaijani population of the city was ethnically cleansed and cannot take part in elections: [5] Whether someone likes it or not, it is a fact that cannot be suppressed. Also, I need to file an SPI request with regard to some new users reverting here. Grandmaster 14:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Because it was not diplomatically expedient for Armenia to do so. A government doesn't magically become a government when recognized. Has Somaliland been a wild, anarchic wilderness for 15 years, hoping and praying that some other kind nation recognize its independence so a government will magically appear out of thin air? Of course not. "Whether someone likes it or not, it is a fact that cannot be surpressed" I agree... but the same applies to the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic being the only operating government in the region. You have to accept that, and you have to accept that you cannot surpress that. --Golbez (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand your criticism of me. Have I ever tried to remove the info about Armenian position? No. So what is the problem? It was a certain group of users who many times removed the info about the legal status of the city from the article. And I'm entitled to have my own personal opinion about things, which I do not push into the article, unlike some others. Grandmaster 20:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, it all stems from you surrounding NKR in quotes. That's the bad faith here. I'm getting tired of people on either side of this conflict painting the otherside as somehow imaginary. It gets us nowhere, it's just a way for people to be snide in what should be civil conversations. --Golbez (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Quotes or not, why don't we stick to the topic of discussion? You cannot force me to change my opinion about things, and I never tried to suppress the Armenian POV. We must reflect all the positions, including that of the international community. We do not write the articles from separatist point of view only. Let's stick to NPOV. Grandmaster 08:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Because when you include them, it makes it seem like you aren't discussing in good faith. --Golbez (talk) 08:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"Legal status" is just some peoples / organisations / countries POV. That position is already reflected elsewhere in the article content. The infobox is not, in my opinion, for that sort of content. The infobox is meant to be a summary reflecting the situation that actually exists within the settlement. Administrative borders have to be for actual administration, town authorities have to have defacto authority. Meowy 21:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Countries and organizations do not have POVs. They have positions, and their position is a fact. Facts must be reflected. And it is a fact that this place has a government in exile. It should be properly reflected. Grandmaster 08:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

At least fourth request now: Give me a source that there is a government in exile, please. I don't see one in the article but I may be looking for the wrong thing. --Golbez (talk) 08:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course you cannot see it, any attempt to include any info about Azerbaijani community and its leadership gets reverted. Here: [6] Grandmaster 14:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Also: The local governments of cities Khankandi and Shusha and of the districts of Aghdam, Füzuli, Jabrail, Kalbajar, Lachin, Qubadly and Zangilan, which are presently under occupation of Armenia, continue to function in exile, and schools and assistance to refugees is organized on the basis of their city or district of origin. [7] Grandmaster 14:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I see nothing controversial about including this, though from these short bits I can't tell how significant the government is, so it would be a short mention. --Golbez (talk) 14:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

That would be ok for now. Grandmaster 15:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I've again restored the content you've again deleted from the infobox. Golbez, I don't want to appear to be aggressively editing, but you have not given any justification for the removal of that content. Earlier in this dicussion you actually agreed that the content is accurate, that Shushi is a town in an entity that calls itself the Nagorno Karabakh republic and forms part of that entity's Shusi province. And it is useful information that a visitor would expect to be in the infobox - for example, I visited the article expecting to access the link to the article on the regions of the NK republic (I wanted to reference some content from it to help editing the Operation Goranboy article) and I was annoyed to see the link was gone. Any reader of Wikipedia articles about settlements in the NK republic should be able to find out through a glance at the settlement's infobox the region in which that settlement is located. That is the way it is for all other settlement articles. They should not be treated like second-class users. Meowy 21:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

By the same token, he should be able to find info about Azerbaijani division, mayor, etc. Why is this info being supressed? Grandmaster 07:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Because that "Azerbaijani division" is not a real administrative division, it administers nothing in Shusha, and that "mayor" is not a real mayor, he represents nobody in Shushi. I'm not saying no mention should be made of those artificial bodies in the article, it just should not in the settlement infobox. The settlement infobox is about Shushi, not about things based in Baku. Meowy 21:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Azerbaijani rayon is a real and the only internationally recognized administrative division. It administers the Azerbaijani population of Shusha, which constituted 98% of the city's population, and now lives in refugee camps. It must be in the settlement infobox. Otherwise it is a rude violation of NPOV. Grandmaster 16:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The infobox is for statistics about Shushi. The Azerbaijani rayon administers nothing and nobody in Shushi, administers nothing and nobody in the whole of the Nagorno-Karabakh republic. And it has been tht way for the past 18 years. Meowy 17:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You are repeating the same argument over and over. I said many times that infobox must reflects all aspects of the situation, not just the Armenian POV. Azerbaijani rayon administers the population of the desolate city, which now lives in exile. Grandmaster 16:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

And you are just ignoring that argument, declining to respond to my point that the infobox should be only for hard data about the settlement called Shushi. The infobox should not be there to reflect "aspects" or "positions" or "claims", and since the Azerbaijani rayon administers absolutely NOTHING in Shushi it should not be mentioned in the infobox. Meowy 16:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the best solution would be to ask the wiki community to decide about this situtaion. It is unlikely that this discussion gives any result. Grandmaster 15:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I restored the info about Azerbaijani division, which was removed without any valid reason, plus added the name of Azerbaijani mayor, as Golbez seemed to agree that this info should be included in the article. Grandmaster 08:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Photo attribution

For those who still can't distinguish Tatars and Azerbaijanis: check out the national woman dresses of Tatars ([8], [9]) and Azeris ([10], [11]), and compare with the image in question. The source's caption was probably preserved for historical purposes, but here we use not obsolete and confusing ethnonyms, but knowledge-based editorial judgment. Brand[t] 20:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Editorial-judgement doesn't call for original research. I delinked Tatar and added 'Caucasian', so as to remove any potential confusion.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

See for example Altstadt: in the 1897 Russian Empire Census Azerbaijanis were called Tatars, becoming Azerbaijani Tatars by 1913. The photo itself was taken by a Russian. Brand[t] 22:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added a reference to the caption for the website that gives the subject of the photo. Meowy 03:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Folks, you aren't new to that. If the original caption of a 16th-century Russian image is Lechians, one shouldn't copy it verbatim, but use Poles instead. Even the section you modify in an edit ninja pattern verifiably explains who are those Tatars actually. Secondary sources are needed to interpret the primary ones, as you probably know. Brand[t] 16:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The analogy with Lechians is silly. Lechians are synonymous with Poles. Both names were used simultaneously, side by side. The Tatar designation was appplied to all muslims, regardless of language or culture by the Russians. Prior to that and for everyone these were just muslims and in the case of Oghuz speakers, Turks. At best, Tatars were proto-Azeris. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:SECONDARY primary sources, which apply the word 'Tatars', should be clarified by secondary, in this case even Suny is useful. Brand[t] 19:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll accept a footnote with text akin to what the main Azeri article has under Ethnonym.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 19:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I offered an apt version. The original caption, if used, should go in the reference only. Brand[t] 19:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest editors look at the discussion page for this image [12] to see where Brand is going with this, and I hope it is not difficult to foresee the unpleasant results if he succeeds in getting to his destination. It invites POV and OR rewriting of every image caption. Also, if there are doubts about what an image shows, maybe that image should not be there at all. Meowy 14:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not a 19th-century encyclopedia and Wikipedia has relevant guidelines on that, see Wikipedia:Captions#Clear identification of the subject in addition. Someone still suffers from confirmation bias, it's time to heal up. Brand[t] 11:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Under the racist regime currently installed in Azerbaijan, the only identity a living "Azerbaijani" can display is that of a Baku-centric Turkic Azeri, and the only identity any Muslim who has ever lived anywhere in the Caucasus can have is "Azerbaijani". However, an "Azerbaijani" is a citizen of the modern country called Azerbaijan, not an ethnicity, and 19th century Tatars were not "Azerbaijanis". We have aready seen in that "Baku massacre" photo discussion how Brand has distorted a source image to suit his POV-warring aims and indulged in repeated deceptions to back it up (I take from his "confirmation bias" link that he is still refusing to admit he provided a false image description and source for that image). Meowy 15:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

When I asked on the image's talk, where your nagging comes from, you just continued the demagogy. The onus is yours, so if you a have a substantiated evidence with a scan, give it and then I would recommend you to read Azerbaijanis#Ethnonym, a featured article, and all the posts I've wrote above. Otherwise cease nagging. Brand[t] 16:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

When I asked on the image's talk where you got that image and its caption from, you refused to say. And you still refuse to say. The onus is on the uploader of an image to address problems associated with the image. Meowy 17:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

For your visual satisfaction:

In many cases Tatars, "Tatars" were used very specifically to refer to the Turkic Azerbaijani people. (Nicholas B. Breyfogle. Heretics and colonizers: forging Russia's empire in the south Caucasus, Cornell University Press, 2005, p. xiii)

...the 'Tatar (Azeri)—Armenian War' of 1905. (Europa Publications Limited. Eastern Europe, Russia and Central Asia 2003, vol 2002, Eastern Europe, Russia & Central Asia, Regional surveys of the world, p. 105)

...Azerbaijani Turks ("Tatars" in the 1897 census and "Azerbaijani Tatars" by 1913)... (Audrey L. Altstadt, The Azerbaijani Turks: power and identity under Russian rule, Hoover Press, 1992, p. 36)

...the... Armenian-Tatar (Azerbaijani) hostilities in 1905-7... (Edmund Herzig, Marina Kurkchiyan. The Armenians: past and present in the making of national identity, Routledge, 2005, p. 90)

Enjoy the holidays. Brand[t] 19:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"Azerbaijani Tatars" in 1913 were Tatars who lived in the vaguely-defined Azerbaijan region, just like "North Americans" are Americans who live in the northern continent of the Americas - the terms do not mean actual ethnic groups called "Norths" or "Azerbaijanis". And (though it is off-topic for this page so I won't mention it again) you are still declining to give any satisfaction, visual or otherwise, about the true source of your "Baku Massacre" image and caption. Meowy 22:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Not correct. Brokhaus and Efron cyclopedia uses the name Azerbaijani Tatar to describe a particular people, an ethnic group which populated Transcaucasia and Iranian Azerbaijan. So did western academic sources, such as Deniker. It is the same ethnic group as Azerbaijanis. Grandmaster 08:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It does not seem to - it says "Turk by language, Iranian by race", [13] which is somewhat contrary to what Azerbaijan would now say an "Azerbaijani" is. And on the "Turks" entry Azerbaijan seems to be being used as a geographical term, not an ethnic one, (and, based on the way Google translates it, it actually seems to refer to Iranian Azerbaijan, not the "Azerbaijan" that is now the Azerbaijan republic) [14]. Meowy 16:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Azeris and Persians are racially almost identical. That's what they meant by "Iranian by race". There was no other Turkic people who inhabited the entire Transcaucasia and Iranian Azerbaijan. Note that Brokhaus describes Azerbaijanis as a distinct single people, not many ones. Back in the 19th century anthropologists tended to classify people by racial features, along with the language. Nowadays racial type is not so important. And here are some western sources who referred to Azerbaijanis as the population of Transcaucasia and north Iran back in late 19th - early 20th century:

In fact, the Polu and other "Turanians" of the northern slope of the Kuen Lun, while speaking a Turkish language, bear a physical resemblance to the Tajiks (Prjevalsky). Like the Sartes, settled inhabitants of Russian Turkestan, and the Tats of the southwest shore of the Caspian, and the Aderbaijani of the Caucasus, they are Persians more or less crossed with Turks, whose language they speak.

The western group is composed of Turkomans of Persia (Kkojars, Afshars) and Russian (Turkmen) or Afghan Turkestan (Jemshids, etc.), of Aderbaijani, Turkish-speaking Iranians of the Caucasus and Persia , and lastly the Osmanli Turks.

Joseph Deniker. The races of man: an outline of anthropology and ethnography. W. Scott, ltd., 1900

[15]

And 2 more sources referring to Azerbaijani people in the 19th century:

V. Turki. Of this important Nationality the Russian statistics give the following details:

I. Osmanli. 700
II. Azerbijani. 970,000
III. Karachai. 20,000
IV. Kabarda. 14,000
V. Kumik . 78,000
VI. Noga. 10,000
VII. Kirghiz. 11,000
VIII. Jaghatai. 77,000
IX. Kalmuk. 11,000
____
1,197,700

One million and one hundred and ninety-seven thousand seven hundred. Of these the Azerbijani are the most important, and spread over the greater part of Trans-Caucasia, and they are homogeneous with the population of the Persian adjoining Province of Tebriz to such an extent, that a translation of the Bible is now passing through the Press at the expense of the British and Foreign Bible Society, which will be intelligible to both.

R. N. Cust. The Languages of the Caucasus. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, New Series, Vol. 17, No. 2 (Apr., 1885), pp. 145-162

Azerbijani or Trans-Caucasian.

I now cross the main ridge of the Caucasus, and come in contact with another Turki Language, the Azerbijani or Trans-Caucasian. It is the language of an important settled population in Trans-Caucasia and North-West Persia, numbering over 3,000,000. Here we find the descendants of the old Kizil-Bashi. In large districts of Georgia, in Shirwan, and Karadagh, on the Western Caspian coast from Resht to Derbent, in the Sirdarlic of Erivan, in the Persian provinces of Azerbijan, Ghilan, and Mazandaran, this is the vernacular.

M. A. Morrison. The Geographical Distribution of the Modern Túrki Languages. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, New Series, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Apr., 1886), pp. 177-195

As you can see, the above Western sources talk about Azerbaijani people as inhabitants of Transcaucasia and Iran. In Russia all Turkic people were traditionally called Tatars (except for Turks of Anatolia). American historian Firuz Kazemzadeh notes that in his review of book by Hovanissian:

it is unfortunate that Hovannisian chooses to call Azerbaijanis Tatars. No one but the Russians ever mistook the former for the latter and even they mended their ways more than fifty years ago.

Firuz Kazemzadeh. Reviewed work(s): The Republic of Armenia, Vol. I, The First Year, 1918-1919 by Richard G. Hovannisian. Source: International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 7, No. 2 (Apr., 1976), pp. 308-309

With regard to the image in question, while following the original description, we must explain that the person pictured is not a Tatar of Volga, but an Azerbaijani, since Volga Tatars never lived in Shusha, while Azerbaijanis did, and they were called Tatars by Russians, like other Turkic people of the Russian empire. Grandmaster 09:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a flawed representation and to state the least an mistaken description. Azerbaijani Tatar cannot be cut to make it Azerbaijani, because the Azerbaijani label here concernthe Tatars, who were initially from Azerbaijan or loosely the term Caucasian Tatars was also used. The use of Azerbaijani as a stand alone name is flawed in this context, not merely inasmuch as it is an anachronism but as well because it does not represent the whole reality of the region. The Russians were not merely calling the Turkic people of the region as Tatar, but the entire Muslim population. Farideh Heyat writes: The label most readily used by the Russians to refer to the Caucasian and Central Asian Muslims was Tatar, driving from the Turkic Tatar tribes whom the Russians had encountered centuries earlier. [source: Azeri women in transition: women in Soviet and post-Soviet Azerbaijan by Farideh Heyat, Women in Soviet and Post-Soviet Azerbaijan. Central Asia Research Forum Series. London and New York: Routledge, 2002. p. 51] Notwithstanding, the Muslim sedentary population was indistinctly referred, be it Turkic, Iranian or Kurds,as Sarts. Different periods with different realities, while it is true that most Muslim wereTurkic speaking, it is wrong to claim that a picture which represents a Tatar woman represents an Azeri woman because you are retrieving an information which was originally not there. This woman could have been Persian or Kurd for all we know even though she probably was Turkic speaking.

For the most part of the sources you provide it's about language not Azeri identity, they refer to the different Turkic dialects. In Azerbijani or Trans-Caucasian, he writes about Turki language, the ethnic affiliation was Muslim, which the Russians mostly identified as Azerbaijani or Caucasian Tatars. Firuz Kazemzadeh remark is intriguing, since most scholars choose to call them for the given period Tatars, because in its own context it does not require to distinguish them. -Zira —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZiraFo (talk • contribs) 18:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The source about Azeri women is not RS in this context. And I quoted at least 4 sources from the 19th century using the ethnonim Azerbaijani to refer to Turkic people, not Muslims in general. That pretty much speaks for itself. And Kazemzade is not the only one who notes that the term Tatar was used mostly by Russians:

The term 'Azeri' was not used by any politician at the time. People spoke of 'Turks', 'Muslims' and (only among Russians) of 'Tatars'.

Olivier Roy. The new Central Asia: the creation of nations. I.B.Tauris, 2000. ISBN 1860642799, 9781860642791

[16] And I note yet another brand new account joining this discussion, and I have a reason to believe that it is someone we already know. Grandmaster 08:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The designation Tatar was not mostly used by the Russians, a quick quest on a library or google book for English language material published during that period should give you a hint. Prior to Russian rule, the term Azeri was not even used to relate to a Turkic language but Iranic and throughout the Russian rule the ignorant West will mostly use Russian terms for people, unless they had their own. The sources you have provided, only two not four refer to a people the others concerns the language. To claim that Russians referred to the Azeri as Tatars is not completely true, like I mentioned and sourced, they did not only call the Turkic speaking people as Tatars, Stephen F. Jones also write that most Muslims were referred to as Tatars, which is similar to what Britanica in its edition of the period write. From this rationale, we can only deduce that Tatar means a Muslim not an Azeri, claiming Azeri is to expect more from the source than it actually express, even though it's true that the majority were Turkic speaking. -Zira —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZiraFo (talk • contribs) 17:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Tatar was a reference to Turkic people, not any Muslim people. It is pretty clear from Russian Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary. This is from the article called Turco-Tatars:

В науке в настоящее время название татар совершенно отвергнуто в применении к монголам и тунгусам и оставлено только за теми тюркскими по языку народностями, почти всецело ныне входящими в состав Российской империи, за которыми оно сохранилось по историческому недоразумению, в отличие от других тюркских народностей, носящих самостоятельные исторические названия (киргизы, туркмены, сарты, узбеки, якуты и т. д.). Некоторые ученые (Ядринцев, Харузин, Шантр) предлагали видоизменить терминологию некоторых Т.-татарских народностей, которые в соматологическом отношении мало имеют общего с тюрками, назвав, напр., адербайджанских татар (по типу — иранцев) адербайджанами, алтайских татар (скорее финнов, чем тюрков) — алтайцами и т. д.; но это пока не привилось, тем более, что по историко-этническим судьбам тюркского племени язык является главнейшим расовым его признаком; иначе пришлось бы исключить из его состава и турок-османов, часть туркменов и многие другие народности. [17]

Translation:

Presently the science completely rejected the use of the name "Tatar" for Mongols and Tungus, and it is kept only for those Turkic by language people, currently almost completely included in the Russian empire, for which it remained by historical coincidence, in contrast with other Turkic people, which have distinct historical names (Kirghizs, Turkmen, Sarts, Uzbeks, Yakuts, etc). Some scholars (Yadrintsev, Kharuzin, Chantre) suggested to change the terminology of some Turko-Tatar people, who somatically don’t have much in common with Turks, for instance, to call Aderbaijani Tatars (Iranians by type) Aderbaijans, Altaic Tatars (rather Finnish, than Turks) – Altaiyans, etc, but for the moment it has not been accepted, especially considering that due to historical-ethnic destiny of the Turkic tribe the language is its main racial feature, otherwise Osman Turks, part of Turkmens and many other peoples would have to be excluded from it as well.

Basically, the above source says that Tatar was the name for those Turkic people which did not have a distinct ethnonym, and Azerbaijani Tatars should be called Azerbaijanis. Russians referred to Azerbaijanis as Azerbaijani Tatars, or Azerbaijanis (see Brokhaus). They did not call Kurds or other Muslims Tatars, plus, the only Muslim people who lived in Shusha were Azeris. I have statistics on Shusha from 1916. It says that Shusha had no Kurdish population. Kurds lived in modern Lachin and Kelbajar. Since the only Muslim people who lived in Karabakh were Kurds and Azeris, and no Kurds lived in Shusha, then who that Tatar girl from Shusha could be? Grandmaster 08:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have provided 3 sources invalidating this which includes Britanica. Sarts was a term applied to the sedentary Muslim population not only Turkic. -ZiraFo —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZiraFo (talk • contribs) 05:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not see any quote from Britannica. Plus, common logic says that the only Muslim people living in Shusha were Azeris. There were no other Muslim people there anyway. See statistics for 1916 (Caucasus calendar of 1917): [18], it shows that the city had no Kurdish population. We know that historically Muslim population of Karabakh consisted of Kurds and Azeris. If the city had no Kurdish population, then who the Tatars (the statistical source calls them "Muslims") in the city could be? Grandmaster 09:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Master, here is the quote from Britannica 1911 edition: The Tatars of the Caucasus seem to be for the most part Azerbaijan Turks mingled with Armenian, Georgian, Lesghian and other blood. But the name is often loosely applied to any Mahommedan Caucasian tribe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZiraFo (talk • contribs) 18:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

"Common logic says that the only Muslim people living in Shusha were Azeris" - there lies the whole problem. There is no such "common logic", but that does not stop Azerbaijan from using the same supposed "common logic" to extend the claim to "the only Muslim people living in the Caucasus were Azeri" (and of course to render "Azeri" as "Azerbaijani"). Meowy 17:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If the only Muslim ethnic group in Shusha were Azerbaijanis, then who this girl could be? You see that Russian statistics did not register any Kurds in the city. And no other Muslim people lived in Shusha. Grandmaster 08:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Those are your words which are contradicted by sources, those in the region of Lachin never existed I suppose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZiraFo (talk • contribs) 18:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, I was not aware that the Russians counted Muslim in the region by ethnic groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZiraFo (talk • contribs) 18:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

There's your answer: The Tatars of the Caucasus seem to be for the most part Azerbaijan Turks. If you have an idea who else this girl from Shusha could be, please let me know. We know that the only Muslim population in the city were Azerbaijanis. Kurds were counted separately, and census did not register any in the city. Grandmaster 08:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

And where did I dispute this? But it is not up to you to claim any person who is called Tatar is an Azeri. As for the census, Russian census lists were not based on ethnicity but reported language. BTW, why did you report me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZiraFo (talk • contribs) 17:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Because you should not evade your ban. Grandmaster 08:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Usage of the words Tatar/Caucasian Tatar

There is a long-standing issue about the usage of the word "Tatar" or "Caucasian Tatar" in Armenia-Azerbaijan-related articles. An old discussion at Talk:Armenian–Tatar massacres 1905-1907 remained in a stalemate and the new one arose on this talkpage, in the section above. I expressed my fresh view on that, but the most recent relevant change in Armenian–Tatar massacres, as well as in Shusha#Demographics upon the arguments presented above have been consistently reverted, due to confirmation bias and conflict of interest as I suspect. I think the usage of Tatar/Caucasian Tatar elsewhere in that context should be also changed, unless there are original quotes or some titles. Brand[t] 08:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

So, is this it? Has there really been no discussion on the RFC going on, while the edit war continues? Sigh. --Golbez (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, there has been no previous mediation attempt. A couple of months ago, since Tatars have a quite different content, I brought the issue here, but with no definite outcome. A third opinion is highly appreciated. Brand[t] 18:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems nobody cares. Or nobody wants to grasp the nettle. Or just the wrong RfC? Is history/geography the right forum to address issues of ethnicity and terminology? I've stated my opinion a number of times before on this page and others, but I'll restate it briefly. When mentioned in Wikipedia, Gauls are described as "Gauls" - they are not described as "French", regardless of how much the modern French consider them to be their ancestors. Vercingetorix was a chieftain of the Arverni tribe, not a chieftain of the French. Similarly, the Aztecs are not called "Mexicans", the Huns are not called "Germans", Jews living in 19th century Europe are not called "Israelis" - even though modern Mexicans, Germans, and Israelis have an ethnic connection to those earlier groups. However, some editors wish to upturn this normal practice and apply the ethnonym used for a citizen of modern Azerbaijan - an "Azerbaijani" - to all Turks (and even to all Muslims) who lived anywhere in the Caucasus at any period since the 11th century. This means turning anyone described as a "Tatar" or "Tartar" into an "Azerbaijani". The reason behind this wish to misapply "Azerbaijani" is because it reflects irredentist-like propaganda emanating from Azerbaijan. Meowy 02:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think history nicely fits here. And I have seen the similar comparisons before, but they are misleading. Gauls were not French, neither were the Aztecs. The word Tatars instead, as multiply secondary sources show, was just an obsolete ethnonym for Azerbaijanis, this nation is not an ADR invention. The real reason is repeating effort to wipe out the word Azeri where possible, not irredentist-like Azeri propaganda. Brand[t] 06:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Tatar, and especially Azerbaijani Tatar, was an ethnonim, used by Russians to refer to Azerbaijanis. There were no other Turkic people in Transcaucasia. Especially in this particular situation, when the entire Muslim population of Shusha consisted exclusively of Azerbaijanis, there's no question who this woman could be. Grandmaster 06:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"The entire Muslim population of Shusha consisted exclusively of Azerbaijanis", "There were no other Turkic people in Transcaucasia". Yes, that is the extremist, irredentist, arguably racist, claim found in Azerbaijani propaganda. Meowy 03:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

What? Please watch your language. I cited statistics on Shusha. It's Muslim population consisted of Azerbaijanis (Azerbaijani Tatars) only. See Brokhaus: 56,5 % армян и 43,2 % азербайджанских татар; остальные — русские и евреи. Population of Shusha: 56,5 % Armenians, 43,2 % Azerbaijani Tatars, the rest - Russians and Jews. [19] Now tell me who were other Mulism people who lived in the city? These are detailed results of the Russian census on Shusha: [20] You see that all Muslim people in the city were Turkic speakers, i.e. Tatars, and no Kurds. As for Transcaucasia in whole, I would be really grateful if you could name any other large Turkic ethnic group that inhabited Transcaucasia, with relevant statistics, of course. Grandmaster 08:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

"Turkic speaker" does not mean "Azerbaijani". The aim behind this use of the word "Azerbaijani" by Azerbaijan is to expand the geographical width and historical depth of the present-day Republic of Azerbaijan beyond its current borders and the timeframe of its historical existence. This extention is done at the expense of both present-day and historical ethnic groups and minorities (as well as at the expense of historical reality) - that is why I said it is arguably racist. Meowy 18:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

If these Turkic people were not Azerbaijani, then who they were? And if they were different people, then where are they now? Grandmaster 08:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

They were Turkish speaking Muslims. Which could mean Turkified Persians, or Turkified Kurds, or Turkified Armenians or Georgians, or even a few ethnically pure Turks. After all, recent analysis has indicated there is little genetic difference between "Georgians", "Armenians", "Kurds", and "Azerbaijanis". A Turkish speaking Muslim from the 19th century is not an "Azerbaijani". An Azerbaijani is a modern word meaning a citizen of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Meowy 17:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest the caption be changed to simply 'girl' until a third opinion can be found. And I mean one other than mine. The above isn't an RFC, it's just a resorting of the fight to another part of the page. --Golbez (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Since the edit war started on this page, I opened an RfC here. But the third opinion could be worthwhile indeed. Brand[t] 19:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is pointless. Let's ask for 3o. Grandmaster 08:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Until someone replies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts#Usage of the word Tatars or the post becomes archived, the interim caption may stay I think. Brand[t] 22:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Recently A Stop at Willoughby provided an outside view at that noticeboard, everyone is welcome to join. Brand[t] 15:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Seal of the Shusha

I don't understand why User:MarshallBagramyan allows only armenian fake nagorno-karabakh logo, when Karabakh is internationally recognised as Azerbaijani territory, therefore it should have Azerbaijani seal.--NovaSkola (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all, the city of Shusha has not been in Azeri control for 18 years. So to put the Azeri seal over anything else is intellectually dishonest. The people of the city have apparently picked a new seal, and while Azerbaijan does occasionally change the name of its cities, I think things like a city name and seal rest with the people of that city, moreso in this case. It would be like putting the information for Khankendi above Stepanakert; yes, that's the Azeri designation for an area they claim but have not controlled for 18 years, and to do that would be poor form considering it's the capital of an (unrecognized) country. (Which of course brings us to the next question, should this even be renamed to Shushi? 18 years is a long time)

Now, of course the Azeri side has to be represented; the area is still internationally considered Azerbaijan (except by a partially recognized country). But an infobox, IMO, needs to reflect reality rather than political grandstanding. The reality is that the census has been conducted by Nagorno-Karabakh, not Azerbaijan; the reality is that the mayor holding actual executive power over the city is Karabakhi, not Azeri; and thus the reality appears to be that the local citizens, Karabakhis, have decided to make a new seal, rather than the government in exile. The exiled government needs to be represented, but not above the reality on the ground. --Golbez (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The local citizens, 98% of them, live in exile as refugees. Those who now live in their homes cannot be considered legal owners of the place, and they are not by the international community. So the Azerbaijani CoA needs to be in the infobox of the article, and should not be removed. Grandmaster 06:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree due to the reasons stated above (18 years is a long time to be pining for an area lost in a war. At a certain point, Azerbaijan will either have to reconquer it or claim it lost; I'm tired of THEM not sacking up either and doing something about it.) But even to mention the supposed Azeri CoA in the article, first we need a citation that that is actually the coat of arms; NovaSkola has thus far refused to provide one. He simply says it's from the 'official site', but I have not seen any official site of the Shusha municipal government in exile. --Golbez (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add to the discussion, that when people say "De Jure" they are forgetting the Constitution of the USSR ("Jure") which provides the right to all it's autonomous entities gain independence from it through a referendum. This law has been applied to Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Moldova or Armenia alike. The recognition of this right is and was the only way for all the countries to become independent from the Union. The same right ("Jure") excercised the people of Nagorno Karabakh Republic. If the International Community has NKR recognised as independent or not, it doesn't fully apply to the term "De Jure". De Jure is about the law and not the recognition of the International Community. The usage of this term in this context is incorrect. Aregakn (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Except, Azerbaijan would state (perhaps rightly, perhaps not) that the NKAO was not an autonomous unit of the USSR, but rather an autonomous unit of the AzSSR as designated by the USSR, and therefore had no direct right to secede from the USSR. We lack the proper Soviet scholars to determine this for us. --Golbez (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I have just checked the NKAO entry in Azerbaijani Soviet Encyclopedia (1979), indeed, it was a unit of Azerbaijani SSR, not the USSR ("an autonomous oblast"). The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (3rd ed., 1974) also places the NKAO within AzSSR. Brandmeister[t] 19:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was clear, that the Constitution of the USSR is for all the units and entities in it, including the entities of RSFSR, Uzbek SSR etc. Or do we need to prove this too?

So the constitution of the USSR is applicable to all autonomous entities, republics etc. including NK Autonomous Oblast. Aregakn (talk) 22:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Shusha is conotrolled by Azerbaijan. BUT, it's steel (de-jure) Azerbaijani territory. So, if the occupators are not controle this territory de-jure (officialy), they cant declare it's officialy (de-jure) seal. Seal is the official symbol. If the symbol is not official, it's not a seal, it's just a symbol. --Мурад 97 (talk) 04:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Its been controlled by NKR for the past 18 years, leaving the Azerbaijan seal is not up to date.Nocturnal781 (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

As I write below: "We have sources - not government at this point, but sources - that this seal is used by the acting government of the city. There is no source that has been presented that illustrates any other seal being used by any other government, either within the city or in exile." The burden of proof is on you to show that the Azeri seal is even being used. --Golbez (talk) 02:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Karabakh separatists are controle this territory non-officialy (de-facto, as it is written in the article). It doesn't matter, how many years they do this. The main: they do this unofficial. So, they can't declare anything official on this terrytory.

If there is a government either in Shusha or in exile using this seal as a symbol of their government, please find a source for it. I know this can be frustrating, I've had a few articles of mine deleted because I knew they were true but there just wasn't enough sourcing for them to maintain their presence on Wikipedia, but it's what we need for this. --Golbez (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Abouth officialy seal: [21] --Мурад 97 (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

That is an image of a seal; it is not a source saying that seal is used. We need sourcing indicating that the Azeri seal is used. --Golbez (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The chapter Foundation

There are many questions that came to my mind when reading this chapter.

The beginning of it has no references. Can anybody add reliable sources as references to those? If not, I shall request references on the article page as a minimum as my knowledge of the foundation is somewhat different. Aregakn (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Often, introductory sections to articles on Wikipedia are unsourced, as they simply repeat assertions made later in the article, where they can be expanded upon and sourced. Though as I look at some random articles, that practice appears to have changed. But before requesting references, make sure to see if anything you question in the introduction is sourced later in the article. --Golbez (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I shall have a look once again just in case. Aregakn (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Not only did I not see references, but also contradiction between 2 parts: history and demography. From this history was sourced and demography - claimed:

• Demography: "When the city was founded in the middle of 18th century, it had predominantly Muslim population...."

• History: "...According to the aforementioned chronicle, prior to construction of the fortress by Panah Ali khan there were no buildings at that location and it was used as a cropland and pasture by the people of the nearby Shushakent village.[11] Another account is presented by Raffi, an Armenian novelist, in his work The Princedoms of Khamsa, who asserts that the palace which Shusha was built on was desolate and uninhabited before Panah-Ali Khan's arrival. He states, "[Panah-Ali Khan and Melik-Shahnazar of Varanda] soon completed the construction (1762) [of the fortress] and moved the Armenian population of the nearby village of Shosh, called also Shoshi, or Shushi into the fortress.″[12]

Shusha was founded in 1750-1752 (according to other sources, 1756–1757) by Panah-Ali khan Javanshir (r. 1748-1763), the founder and the first ruler of the independent Karabakh khanate (1748–1822), which comprised both Lowland and Highland Karabakh.[13][14] The latter, where Shusha was built, was predominantly inhabited by Armenians, living in five Armenian princedoms governed by their own hereditary princes.[14] The town was initially named Panahabad, after its founder.[15][16] During the rule of Ibrahim-Khalil khan (r. 1763-1806), the son of Panah Ali khan, the town received its present name, derived from a nearby Armenian village called Shushi, also known as Shushikent ("village of Shushi") or Shosh.[14]..."

In the history section it is clearly seen, that Armenians were the first to populate the town and those were surely not Muslims. I am to delete this WP:OR sentence, if there are no objections. Aregakn (talk) 22:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere does it say that Armenians were the first to populate the town. It was built as a Muslim town, and Armenians were a minority until the region became a part of Russia. The sources make it pretty clear. Grandmaster 06:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This is what Mirza Jamal writes:

В 1170 мусульманском году, соответствующем 1754 христианскому, он переселил (сюда) всех райятов, проживавших в крепости Шахбулагы, а также семейства знатных людей, меликов, служащих и старост из илатов и некоторых деревень и предоставил им место для жительства внутри крепости. До этого здесь не было никаких жилищ. Это место было пашней и пастбищем, принадлежавшими жителям Шушикенда, расположенного в шести верстах восточнее крепости. После устройства народа, определения для всех, в особенности для себя, (участков для) домов и жилищ, он совместно с искусными мастерами и прозорливыми каргузарами построил стены крепости, которые ныне разрушены и лишь в некоторых местах остались их следы. [22]

He says that Panah khan settled in the town that he founded the population of his previous capital, the castle of Shahbulag. Grandmaster 06:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Another Armenian source, Mirza Yusuf Nersesov, confirms that Muslims were the majority of population of the town when it was founded:

Although at the times of Panah Khan, when Shushi was just founded, its Moslem population prevailed: they were brought from Tabriz, Nakhichevan and Karabagh tribes. [23]

Grandmaster 07:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleting templates or other information with no reason described in Wiki rules and without dicussion

I would like to warn Brandmeister, NovaSkola, Tuscumbia and anybody else NOT to delete templates or information from articles on broad Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 articles with no obvious WP:VANDALISM reason. Such issues should be dealt with through reasoning in discussions. Other actions are not in the spirit of above WP:AE. Aregakn (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Templates should not be included without consensus with other involved editors. Also, see how a group of users removed the template of History of Azerbaijan from Caucasian Albania article. If you insist on your warning, I think you should direct it to those editors as well. Grandmaster 05:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Templates are NOT INFORMATIONS to be discussed for incusion or not. The consensus is about the information in the article and not the links to other articles. Links to other articles ARE NOT information. Also what other users do does not justify you doing the same. Aregakn (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course they are. If someone creates a template for, say, Spain and adds Lisbon to its content, then the template definitely misleads the reader and does need to be discussed before any action. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Another sort-of template issue. I was looking at the copyright status of the Coat of Arms of Shushi image [24] and the copyright info is incorrect. Under Armenian copyright law [25] it is, according to article 4, a non protected work, quote: "Copyright protection shall not be afforded to: ... state emblems and signs (flags, coats of arms, medals, monetary signs." But I don't know what sort of copyright box it should be changed to. 93.97.143.19 (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Since the city of Shusha is not in Armenia by anyone's definition, I don't think their law applies. The question is whether Azeri or Karabakh copyright law applies to creations of municipal governments. In the absence of knowledge, we have to assume it does. (I think. I'm no expert) --Golbez (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The copyright laws of Armenia and Azerbaijan are exactly the same on this issue of state emblems: [26]. 93.97.143.19 (talk) 21:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Erich Feigl

Info by E.Feigl used by S. Cornell is not acceptable.Xebulon (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Please read carefully Wiki article on Erich Feigl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xebulon (talk • contribs) 15:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I extracted the following passage which was hanging there without any references. Please verify it with references, after which it can be reinserted:

When the city was founded in the middle of 18th century, it had predominantly Muslim population. In the late 19th to early 20th century, the Armenian Christian population increased and prevailed in number over the Muslim. In Soviet times Shusha became the second largest town in Nagorno-Karabakh and the first in terms of predominantly ethnic Azeri population. you can start here. Vandorenfm (talk) 02:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

First of all everyone knows Muslims grow in numbers faster than Christian. Second, Shushi was built on Armenian lands. Third, who you think built the fortress? Turkic tribes that lived nearby. No it was built by Armenians. There is an indication, that when the city was built many Armenians from nearby villages were brought to Shushi. Muslims were in majority only after Sovietization, when Armenians were killed or forced to leave and Azeris took their place. There is no indacation or source, that says that in XVIII century, when the city was established Muslims were in majority, and don't show Azerbaijani sources to me.Aram-van--Aram-van (talk) 06:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this confusion arises because of the way some parts of the article are written. Shusha was established as a town and fortress mush earlier than the time when Panakh Jevanshir appeared in Karabakh. There are several testimonies on that matter. At some point Shusha was perhaps partially destroyed, which allowed Mirza Jamal Jevanshir and some others to claim that it was built by Panakh. Panakh re-built it. Therefore, a section called "Pre-History of Shusha" will improve the text. Xebulon (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you Xebulon. You know in Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia is written: Because of Shushi's natural impregnable location, from ancient times it was used by Varanda region's Armenian population as an defensive fort, which later became a fortress. It's also written:The city(Shushi) in the Early Middle Ages was called Shikaqar. Here ishkhan Sahl Smbatyan in IX century defeated Arabs and liberated captured Armenian population. In the Late Middle Ages the city was called Qaraglukh, Shosh, Shosh fortress (as after enemies' attacks Armenian population from Shosh region came to Shushi). In XVIII Shoshi fortress became the center in the fight against Turks. At that time maybe the fortress was rebuilt by struggle commanders(Avan haryurapet), who are mentioned, as the rulers of the fortress. I also suggest we move the Shusha to the page Shushi. What do you think Xebulon?Aram-van--Aram-van (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

All the sources say that the fortress was built to be the capital of Azeri khanate. Stop inserting controversial text. Discuss first. --Quantum666 (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

And I see no reason not to use E.Feigl. His opinion is important and is mentioned by Cornell as well as Walker's. --Quantum666 (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"All the sources say that the fortress was built to be the capital of Azeri khanate." which sources. There are no sources saying this. Quantum: Please return the text with references its original condition. You were given reasons why Feigl is unacceptable - they are in the Wiki itself. Reply to the given explanations if you want to participate in Wiki. Wiki is a dialogue not monologue. Aram-van: I would not move Shusha to Shushi as of yet. Xebulon (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you might not have any problem with using him as a source but I'm quite sure that if we were to reference a book entitled Armenia: A Myth of Terror, a book which is promoted by Azerbaijan's Ministry of National Security, to the administrators on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, they wouldn't waste too much time deliberating on its reliability.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

People like Quantum just want to vandalize Wiki pages to push their POV. They are not interested in any discussions and that is what they demonstrate time after time. Xebulon (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the question of the seal

Neftchi/Mursel, refer to this discussion regarding the issue of the Shushi seal. We still don't have a source and until a reliable one is found our best option would be to perhaps move both of them into a section below. But in the event that a compromise such as that cannot be reached, it seems rather unlikely that we would opt to exclude the de facto seal from the infobox.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Well the same can be asked from the current coat. What Armenian government source uses this as the coat of arms for Shusha? Mursel (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

We have multiple sources: for example, see this article and this page. Visit Shushi today and you will see images of the angel plastered all over the town. It is, by the way, an official symbol used by the Karabakh Armenian government, not Armenia proper's.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Are not government sources. If Today.Az wrote an article on the Azerbaijani coat of arms, would this count as a source? Mursel (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure it matters. We have sources saying the people and government in the town today are using this coat of arms. Unless a source stated that a significant government-in-exile was using a different coat, there's simply no reason to place the two equally. One is used by the people in the town who have run it for the last 20 years, the other - if used at all - would be by a government-in-exile. --Golbez (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

And we are we going to get any government sources that this de-facto coat is used or are we to take Marshall's word for it? Mursel (talk) 11:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, I'm not sure it matters. We have sources - not government at this point, but sources - that this seal is used by the acting government of the city. There is no source that has been presented that illustrates any other seal being used by any other government, either within the city or in exile. --Golbez (talk) 05:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Vereschagin?

The image "Armenian House in Shusha" most likely was not made by Vereschagin, although this looks like graphic produced by him during his visit to Shusha. Yesterday I found this link to Google Books as reference [27]. See page 200, and picture numbered 88 called "An Armenian drawing room." Even if produced by Vereschagin, the description on page 201 says "Armenian drawing house in Soucha." Sprutt (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Must be a mistake. The people on the picture look nothing like Armenians, they are typical Muslim people of the region, in long traditional hats. It is better to find the original drawing by Vereshagin in a Russian source. Grandmaster 18:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

They look very Armenian, in long traditional hats. Sprutt (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that there was such thing as a "(with)drawing room" in Caucasian houses. Meowy 02:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Same picture classified as Armenian guest house can be found in Houri Berberian. "Armenians And The Iranian Constitutional Revolution Of 1905-1911: The Love For Freedom Has No Fatherland." Westview Press (January 26, 2001). Thank you for your "opinion," Meowy. Interesting opinions you have sometimes. Sprutt (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

In a Russian collection of works by Vereshagin published in 1896 the same picture is titled "Hall in the house of a Tatar in Shusha". [28] You can download the whole book here: [29] It is copyright free, since it was published more than 100 years ago. Figuier clearly made a mistake, since the original source had a different title. Note that Figuier was not the author of the picture, Vereshagin was. Also, the people on the picture look like typical Muslim Turkic people of the region, see for example File:Bek.jpg. Grandmaster 08:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Not convincing. File:Bek.jpg could be Armenian bek in Karabakh (Vereshagin did not specify religion or ethnicity and Armenians and Tatars wore similar costumes). Here are Armenian costume [30] and [31]. The download is difficult and is not for free. This does not measure up to facsimile edition that is on Google Book and other publications. Are there are opinions from credible secondary sources saying it was mistaken? How do we know that Figuier was not the author of the picture? His book has dozens of identically made litographs. All of them Vereshagin? I think it is not Vereshagin and there was mistake in Russia made in 1896 by those who confused Figuier's pic with Vereshagin's.(talk) 15:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC) Sprutt (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is it not? The bek picture is by Gagarin, the original source says Tatar bek from Karabakh. It was a portrait made during his travels to the region. Your pictures state no source or author. The 1896 book is also from google, it might be available for download in your country. It was written by Vereshagin's biographer. Figuer does not mention the author of the picture, and as far as I know he never traveled to the region. I see no reason why Vereshagin's biographer would ascribe to him paintings that he did not make. If anything, it is more a reliable and expert source than Figuer. Also, there are other Russian books that give the same description of the picture. Grandmaster 17:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This is the scan of the same image with description in old Russian: [32] It is hosted on the website of the Russian Ministry of Culture. They know better who the author was. Grandmaster 17:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It can easily be Russian mistake made 100 years ago by Vereshagin biographer. Figuer's book features his own pics. Armenians and tatars wore similar cloths. Google books does not provide Vereshagin biographer's book. Sprutt (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The website of the Russian Ministry of Culture is created by art experts. And no, Figuer's book does not feature his own pictures, there are other Vereshagin's pictures there. Grandmaster 17:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Luis Figuer was a top scientist of his time. He knew better than modern "art scientists" from Russia. He might known better than Vereschagin himself. Sprutt (talk) 17:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

How could Louis Figuier know better than the modern and the 19th century Russian art historians? In every collection of Vereshagin's works the image is described as the hall in a Tatar house. It is very unlikely that no one in Russia knows the real name of the work. It is also interesting that Figuer for some reason cropped the picture, cutting out at least one figure, while the Russian reproductions show the entire work. This shows that the image in Figuer's book is not an accurate copy of the original, to which he may have not the access. Also, Vereshagin's picture is from 1865, and not 1873, as claimed in Figuer's book. If he made his picture in 1873, then Vereshagin's picture already existed by that time. Grandmaster 18:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I hear you. On balance though we should trust the immediately identifiable Luis Fuguirer in 1873 more than Vereshagin's biographers of 1896. The website LostArt.ru is about controversies and it presents the picture as controversial. It is about lost art and if this pic was lost it is easy to misidentify its author or what it depicts. Sprutt (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Russian sources are also immediately identifiable. Lost or not, the image was clearly by Vereshagin, since Figuier was not an artist, and never traveled to Shusha. Figuier took it from Vereshagin, cropped it, cutting out a large section, and dated it 1873, while Vereshagin's work was created in 1865. Therefore the Russian sources are more trustworthy, since they are written by specialists on the author. That includes experts from the Russian Ministry of Culture. Grandmaster 19:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This is all your personal interpretation. Are there reputable secondary sources discussing this controversy and supporting your theory about Figuier's trampling with the image, and/or confirming that it depics Tartars and not Armenians? Sprutt (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Why do we need secondary sources for that? By the same token, are there secondary sources that the Russian publications of Vereshagin's works contain wrong titles? Grandmaster 05:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Le Tour du monde, Volumes 19-20, published in 1869, describes the same picture as "Salon d'une maison tatare, a Schoucha", by Vereshchagin: [33] So clearly Figuier made a mistake in his book, which was published 4 years later. I think this resolves the issue. Grandmaster 08:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense. Although this does not resolve the issue outright, now I am more inclined to believe it is pic showing Tatars rather than Armenians. Good example of how contentious issues should be settled. Sprutt (talk) 13:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a picture of Azerbaijani bek, not Armenian. Read description:"Bek Tatare du Karabakh" (in 19 century Azerbaijani people were called Tatars). --Interfase (talk) 07:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)