Wikipedia

Talk:Shusha/Archive 12

< Talk:Shusha
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Szmenderowiecki in topic RFC on Destruction of Town
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14

Destruction of cultural heritage

Latest comment: 3 years ago68 comments6 people in discussion

The intro says that "multiple reports emerged that the Armenian cultural heritage of the city was being destroyed", but all the sources are Armenian. A Russian source that is used also refers only to Armenian politicians. I think that these claims at the very least require attribution. And why no mention is made of destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage? There are plenty of photo, video and other evidence, including at Wikicommons of ruined mosques, tombs, museums, etc after the city fell to Armenians in 1992. Well-known photo journalist Reza Deghati also documented some of the destruction in his Instagram: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] I think this should also be reflected in the the article. Grandmaster 14:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I join to this subject. I'd added "Armenian sources" but as usually some Users (ZaniGiovanni, Qawmiyāt) undid without discussion in advance on Talk Page. There is information also about massacre in Shusha in 1920 and destroying, and never remind that the same developments refer to all sides of conflict in the region. --Aydin mirza (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Destruction of cultural heritage is confirmed by Eurasianet. --Steverci (talk) 03:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
That same source also mentions that:
The church renovation thus parallels in some ways Armenians’ custody of the Islamic and Azerbaijani cultural sites on the same territory during the time that they controlled it, from the 1990s until last year. Armenians, with some fanfare, restored a mosque in Shusha in 2019, but they labeled it “Persian” over the objections of Azerbaijanis. In many more cases, though, Armenians simply neglected non-Armenian historic sites, wrote them out of the region’s history, and let them fall into ruin or allowed them to be plundered, a process that Azerbaijanis are now trying to reverse.
Grandmaster 09:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
...and then it mentions that:
The brazenness of this church renovation, though, and the Azerbaijani authorities’ explicitly stated intent to alter its appearance to fit their historical narrative, is yet a further step. --Steverci (talk) 02:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
The point is that destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage is also confirmed, so it should be reflected the same way in the lead. Grandmaster 09:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Calling a mosque Iranian is not "destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage", and the source blatantly states cultural heritage destruction is a further step committed by the Azeris. --Steverci (talk) 03:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Quoting once again: Armenians simply neglected non-Armenian historic sites, wrote them out of the region’s history, and let them fall into ruin or allowed them to be plundered. Grandmaster 09:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Neglected =/= destroyed, as the article points out immediately afterward. --Steverci (talk) 04:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
And plundered means what? Grandmaster 08:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Neglect. --Steverci (talk) 02:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Neglect and plunder have different meanings in English. According to dictionary:
Plunder: to steal goods violently from a place, especially during a war; to steal or remove something precious from something, in a way that does not consider moral laws or is more severe than it need be.
Neglect: to not give enough care or attention to people or things that are your responsibility; to not do something, often because you forget.
Stealing and not taking care are two different things.
Grandmaster 10:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
all sources are Armenians, the last one say according to Armenians also, it's not their investigation, no proof, just comments from Twitter etc. It should be edited and noted as "Armenian sources". Or we should again apply to Jr8825, otherwise all editions will be reverted once more. Aydin mirza (talk) 23:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the government did not give care or attention to a few isolated incidents of alleged plundering, because it just ignored the structures. It did not immediately begin organized destruction of cultural monuments under the disguise of "renovations", which is why I am removing the false balance you added to the lead. Get a consensus. --Steverci (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Hallo, all, ZaniGiovanni reverted the same edition and said that we have no consensus. Grandmaster and Jr8825, I don't know if the fact needs any consensus, but pls, let's finish this subject. If it's right, let us know, if it's no way, we close this case. But firstly, I'd like to clarify some issues. 1. why some Users can revert without any discussion every(till now) editions of mine, and I should every step discuss firstly, prove etc? And it happens,considering acceptanance of my previous editions after long discussions. 2. what about the sources and their reliebily? Official site of Arm.Ministry is relieble, but others are news sites. And I once more ask about the last citation(they report from the name of persons). Additional to that, this site is not relieble. The same Users try to block any similar cases in the same surrent article. --Aydin mirza (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Destruction of Azerbaijani cultural monuments is a fact attested by many sources. It must be reflected in the article. At the same time, destruction of Armenian monuments is indeed supported mostly by Armenian sources which are partisan in this issue. Grandmaster 10:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
There is not a single source confirming government organized "Destruction of Azerbaijani cultural monuments" and trying to equivlant that to an individuals plundering is WP:OR and WP:POVPUSH. --Steverci (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Grandmaster, I insert "Armenian reports", but it's reverted immidiately. I don't want to start edit wars, that's why request consensus. Can I insert "mostly Armenian sources" without reverting? I'm applying to Jr8825 as third side, who knows and involves this subject. As regards to destruction of Azerbaijani monuments, I'll see and try to manage. do you assist to insert this information with the sources? Aydin mirza (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
First of all, at least ping me when you're mentioning my name. I like how you pinged Grandmaster and Jr8825 but none of the Armenian editors, including me who reverted you. Especially Grandmaster, since both of you share the same POV. And you don't seem to understand that you aren't supposed to ping someone who'll agree with you, or give your personal commentary when you're asking for opinions since you're breaching WP:CANVASSING. I'm the one who reverted you, and you need to finally understand a couple of things:
1) If you can barely type in proper English grammar, maybe eng-wiki isn't for you, cause figuring out some of your text is torture
2) why some Users can revert without any discussion every(till now) editions of mine, and I should every step discuss firstly, prove etc? Wait hold on a second, I thought Azeri editors were not even slightly reluctant to agree with Jr8825 proposal not so long ago, and I was told that it was the tangentially agreed version multiple times. So I am restoring the agreed version. How many times I have to explain to you WP:BRD WP:ONUS? It's not on me to discuss with you when I revert you, since I'm not the one adding/changing content to the page, you are.
Lastly, we not only have Armenian/Russian sources now, but German source as well. Go find another reason for your "only Armenian reports" line, because I know you care about the sources so much. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
It is not German, it is just another Armenian source. Deutsch-Armenische Juristenvereinigung e.V. German-Armenian Lawyers Association. How is this a reliable source? Grandmaster 20:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
So it's unreliable by virtue of being Armenian? Did you even open or read the contents of the article? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
It is not third party, not neutral. Why then cannot we cite Azerbaijani sources describing destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage? Grandmaster 08:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
one more Armenian source - https://dearjv.de/ueber-uns/vorstand/. the site is just registered in Germany(Deutsch-Armenische Juristenvereinigung e.V.). --Aydin mirza (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
ZaniGiovanni, I think you mean videos and photos in this report. But we discuss here the sources, not the reports. If all sources are Armenian, it should be noted. At least we could insert "mostly Armenian". As to ping you, I don't want to desturb you with my bad English, and prefer to talk to the Users understand me. Aydin mirza (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Why do you want to ethnically classify every source, when clearly with this article we don't have to? And which guideline says "If all sources are Armenian, it should be noted"? First of all, not all sources are Armenian. Secondly, show me the guideline where it says we MUST ethically classify every source, especially when the article report has most if not all the destruction material/videos shown from... Azeri soldiers directly. Lastly, you absolutely have to to show a basic level of English grammar understaning whomever you're talking to, you're on English language Wikipedia. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 04:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
The rules require that we use third party sources. Biased sources need proper attribution. Also, German-Armenian lawyers are not a good source on this particular topic. In any case, I also added sources on destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage. It is an undeniable fact, we have lots of pictures in wiki commons that show ruined mosques and other buildings in Shusha, which were taken before 2020. Grandmaster 09:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
The rules require that we use third party sources. Biased sources need proper attribution. Also, German-Armenian lawyers are not a good source on this particular topic. – you do understand that the article contains most if not all material/videos directly from Azeri soldiers, right?
I also added sources on destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage. – you added 3 sources – an Instagram post, a report of a tweet (from the same Instagram profile), and an article that mostly talks about Azerbaijani controversial renovation of Armenian church and actually mentions the Armenian church and cementary being destroyed, quote:
"In 1920, Shusha’s Armenians suffered pogroms at the hands of Azerbaijanis and the city’s entire Armenian population was killed or expelled. The church was damaged at this time and it lost its dome, remaining in that damaged".
"Azerbaijan already is known to have destroyed one Armenian church, although that was a three-year-old structure on a military base. Also this week, a group of U.S.-based scholars documenting the fate of Armenian sites in the region published satellite photography showing the destruction of an Armenian cemetery. Azerbaijani officials have not commented."
You'll need better sources for this. Now compare it to the article, when all the material and videos reported are directly from Azeri soldiers self-documenting their vandalism, which shows solid proof of Armenian cultural heritage of the city being destroyed and ruined. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 00:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
I used exactly the same source as was used for claims of destruction of Armenian monuments. Eurasianet is the only third party source to support the claims of destruction of Armenian monuments. I can add 4 Azerbaijani sources, and it will be the same sourcing as for claims for Armenian monuments damage. You cannot use Eurasianet selectively. If it reports damages to both types of monuments, it should be quoted exactly as it says. I don't see what destruction of a modern church in Jabrayil has to do with Shusha. Reza Deghati is a world famous photographer, his photos grace covers of National Geographic and many other top publications. He is a lot more reliable than Armenian sources quoted. Please do not revert, the claim is sufficiently sourced. Grandmaster 08:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't think you read my comment clearly. It's not just "an Armenian source", it's direct self-documented cases of Azeri soldiers destroying Armenian monumtnets and heritage. The website is just a medium, those self-documented vandalism videos and material are perhaps the strongest case of destruction shown so far. Your added source mostly talks about Armenian church/cementary/monument destruction and makes a stronger case for it, you cannot possibly rely only on it for edits such as this. Meanwhile, not only we have the Eurasianet source referencing Arm monument/heritage destruction, but as I said already, self-documented evidence directly from Azeri soldiers. Do you have comparable sources to that? Show and discuss, instead of adding instagram and twitter posts. Weren't you the one saying German-Armenian lawyers are not a good source on this particular topic despite the source contents having nothing to do with their profession, and actually being solid self-documented evidence. But now you don't have a problem of including some national geographic photographer for controversial claims, using his instagram and twitter posts? What reliable publications referenced him? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Some of those videos are proven fakes, and only one is related to Shusha. The rest are modern monuments destroyed elsewhere, and have nothing to do with this article. And Deghati provides a detailed evidence of vandalism. He is certainly more reliable than Armenian lawyers from Germany. There is no rule that Instagram posts cannot be used. As for Eurasianet, if we use it for destruction of Armenian monuments, it should be ok to use it for destruction of Azerbaijani monuments. Selective use is not in line with rules. Grandmaster 08:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Some of those videos are proven fakes, and only one is related to Shusha care to explain which ones? Hope you don't mean the ones with Az unifrom and speaking Azerbaijani.
And Deghati provides a detailed evidence of vandalism. He is certainly more reliable than Armenian lawyers from Germany. He's not more reliable then self-reported evidence by Az sodliers' vandalism, which was swarming the internet during the war, and which the article collected in one place.
As for Eurasianet, if we use it for destruction of Armenian monuments, it should be ok to use it for destruction of Azerbaijani monuments Eurasianet makes stronger case for Armenian monument/heritage destruction. You can't use one sentence quote from the whole article to suit your edit, when bulk of the article tries to show a completely different thing e.g. extensively mentioning Armenian church "renovation" / destruction. Cemetery destruction, etc. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
There is evidence that those angels on the cathedral were destroyed by Armenians themselves. Eurasianet quotes the same Deghati, btw. He is world famous photographer. If you do not like Instagram, we can use this: [6] I will add 5 more Azerbaijani sources, they are as good as Armenian ones. Like this, for example: [7] Both contain plenty of photo evidence. And even if Eurasianet makes brief mention of Armenian destruction, it is more than enough for reference. Who says that one line is not sufficient? I do not see anything about it in the rules. Grandmaster 08:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
There is no mention of mosques being destroyed on the Eurasianet article, and the photographer, Reza Deghati, is a partisan Azerbaijani. He has no sources and is doing original research. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Eurasianet does not talk about ruining and plundering of specific monuments, but Azerbaijani monuments in general. I used the wording of Eurasianet. Deghati can do an original research we cannot. He is a world famous photographer, whose photos were published by top Western newspapers and magazines. And talking about partisanship, why 4 partisan Armenian sources are acceptable, and Deghati is not? He documents vandalism of Azerbaijani monuments in much detail. Grandmaster 09:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
The Eurasianet article is about Armenian monuments; everything you're citing it for Azeri monuments is just original research. Calling Reza Deghati very pro-Azeri or partisan would be an understatement, he's practically a government spokesmen.[8][9] And thus not a reliable source by any means. --Steverci (talk) 02:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
How quoting exact wording of Eurasianet is original research? Original research would be if I wrote something that was not there. As for Reza Deghati being partisan, there are 4 partisan Armenian sources claiming destruction. Why is it Ok to use Armenian partisan sources, and not ok to use Azerbaijani (though Deghati is in fact Iranian-French)? Grandmaster 08:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Eurasianet only has a passing mention and nothing more. One passing mention from an article about Armenian heritage destruction isn't due enough to be used, especially for the lead. Note that Eurasianet didn't think claims of Azeri heritage destruction deserved their own article. This is WP:FALSEBALANCE. It doesn't even matter what his background is, he's a advocate in the employ of the Azeri government. And there are just as many non-Armenian sources, which you conveniently ignored, including Russian, German, European, and even Azeri self-documented vandalism and destruction. --Steverci (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
I added another third party source, and 2 Azerbaijani. Should be sufficient. Grandmaster 09:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
UserXpetVarpet, we have consensus to edit and undo after dicussion. Your last undo is unsubstantiated. Don't you see similar sources below? Maybe it's also unobjective interpretation of the sources. Aydin mirza (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
You need to learn what consensus is. There was no consensus for that dubious sourced edit, and it was rightfully reverted. The discussion is still very much ongoing. If you'll add it again without consensus, you'll be reverted per WP:BRD, WP:ONUS. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 00:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

In addition to Eurasianet, Steverci and ZaniGiovanni keep removing this third party source: [10] And here's another third party source:

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

Chapter:

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

Pages 77-100

by Muth, Sebastian

Quote:

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

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

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

He's not really adding anything new though, is he? He's still citing De Waal, which means that he probably didn't do any original research on the subject to comment on it with any authority. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
He refers to de Waal only when discussing the events of 1920s. He provides a reference to de Waal where he refers to him, which is when discussing the 1920s. But de Waal did not write about Lower Govhar Aga mosque, for example. And the author did his own research and traveled for that to Nagorno-Karabakh. Grandmaster 18:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Failedarchitecture.com is essentially a blog and the author a "writer and visual artist based in London". Not a reliable source. The Muth source makes a very false claim because there are not any monuments that were entirely destroyed, nor does he even name any. --Steverci (talk) 02:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
If we quote German-Armenian lawyers, why cannot we quote an artist who saw vandalism with his own eyes? Muth says that historical buildings were defaced, destroyed or left in disrepair, and names in particular Ashaghi Govhar Agha Mosque, and even posts its photo in the book. Grandmaster 08:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
It's a blog written by a nobody. Ruined due to being abandoned or deliberate cultural destruction? You have no credible sources for the latter. --Steverci (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
I provided a scholarly source right above. Muth says that "Azerbaijani quarter of Shusha was looted and its cultural monuments defaced or destroyed". Grandmaster 08:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
And yet they are visibly still standing, and Muth didn't identify a single one allegedly destroyed. --Steverci (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Grandmaster 20:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks like it's still standing and is just abandoned. This is no evidence of deliberate organized cultural destruction, as Azerbaijan is committing. --Steverci (talk) 02:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
As is obvious from the photos, the buildings are ruined, and sources that I quoted also attest to that. Grandmaster 08:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
It looks obvious from the photos that the buildings fell apart from not being used, not deliberitly destroyed. --Steverci (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
These are not deliberately destroyed? They are taken apart brick by brick. I provided a scholarly source that says Azerbaijani monuments were deliberately destroyed. So we have sources, and visual evidence too. There is also plenty of video evidence that I can post here.
  •  
    Chukhur mehelle mosque
  •  
    Khan's palace
  •  
    Khoja Marjanli Mosque
    • Grandmaster 08:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
    And what was their previous condition? How do we know they weren't ruined during the war and just never repaired? These photos by themselves are nothing. If there was deliberate Azeri cultural heritage destruction, Eurasianet or some other western NGO would've been all too eager to write a thesis on it, but the fact is there isn't. --Steverci (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

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

    You can't request a third opinion when more than 2 editors are involved, see WP:THIRD. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
    I took it to WP:DRN as well. Grandmaster 10:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

    Arbitrary break

    Here's one more source [11]. This is from the forensics lab of the Atlantic Council and it's been quoted by the NYT. The latter article is an opinion piece, so we shouldn't use it for statements of fact. Alaexis¿question? 06:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

    And an ever better one [12] from the Cornell University's Caucasus Heritage Watch project:


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

    First source is entirely based on twits by various Armenian bloggers, and has no dependent confirmation. But damage to the angel sculptures (modern addition, not historical heritage) on the church in Shusha is very questionable. Independent bloggers come to totally different conclusions [13] [14] Video footage shows that angel figures had their heads attached on 8 October, but footage from 13 October shows them without heads, and Azerbaijan took control of the city on 6 November. So who removed their heads? As for the second one, it is also an Armenian/pro-Armenian source, which despite claiming neutrality reports only damage to the Armenian heritage, completely ignoring massive damage to the Azerbaijani heritage. That obviously causes serious doubts about its impartiality and reliability. But in any case, the article you quote confirms a known fact that the church was hit by a missile. There are much better sources on that. Grandmaster 14:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
    What makes you say that Cornell University's Caucasus Heritage Watch project is "Armenian/pro-Armenian"? Or rather, which reliable sources have called them pro-Armenian? Alaexis¿question? 16:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
    To my knowledge, they have not attracted attention of third party sources yet. But the fact that they only report the damage to the Armenian sites while completely ignoring much bigger damage to the Azerbaijani ones shows obvious bias. Where have they been for the last 28 years, when Azerbaijani sites were destroyed, and why they became active now, showing only one side of the story? One would expect unbiased researcher to document any damage, and not the damage only to one of the sides to the conflict. The reason for the bias might be that their team is mostly ethnic Armenian. [15] But as I said above, if you propose that source to document the missile strike to the church, there are much better sources. Grandmaster 16:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
    I haven't read their report, only the article. Maybe there they have more examples. I should say that I don't agree with your approach to the sources. Them not reporting on other things doesn't make them unreliable. Maybe they are biased but WP:RS specifically says that biased sources can be reliable. Alaexis¿question? 20:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
    I would say that biased sources can be used, when their evidence is corroborated by other sources. We have similar projects from Azerbaijani side, documenting destruction of Azerbaijani monuments by comparing Soviet era and present day photos of the monuments. I think such evidence is undeniable, but use of such sources causes objections from some users here. Another example, you can see above that well-known Iranian-French photo journalist Reza Deghati also documented some of the destruction in his Instagram: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] His photos grace covers of prominent international publications: [21] But I was told that he is biased, therefore not acceptable. But his photos are undeniable evidence of destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage. The question is, do we use such sources on both sides, or not? Grandmaster 08:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
    There is a difference between an instagram account of a photographer (who is not a subject matter expert) and a report published by a prestigious university. Alaexis¿question? 09:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
    But it is not a peer reviewed scholarly publication or something of the sort. It is just a project on a university website. Their sponsors are also quite telling. [22] As for Instagram, Facebook etc postings by Deghati, he documents in his photos the destruction much better than satellite images posted by that project. You can see close up the evidence, and compare the modern day condition of a monument with the original condition. Plus, those photos were shared by many news outlets, but mostly in Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 13:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
    I've looked at the dashboard and in fact there are other damaged buildings in Shusha. I think we need an RfC to get outside feedback on the reliability of this source for the claim that several objects of Armenian cultural heritage were damaged in the wake of the 2020 war. Alaexis¿question? 16:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, but not just on this one. Also on other sources, from both sides, documenting cultural heritage destruction. I checked their "dashboard", and could not find any mention of damage to 17 mosques of Shusha. As if they never existed, or do not have any historical or cultural value. Grandmaster 17:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

    RFC on Destruction of Town

    Latest comment: 2 years ago37 comments14 people in discussion
    The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    Snowball closure: there is consensus against singling out Azeri cultural heritage sites in the destruction. This is not a contest of whose heritage got worse off. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

    Survey (Destruction of Town)

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

    Threaded Discussion (Destruction of Town)

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

    Please see User:Grandmaster/Shusha destruction for sources on destruction of the town and cultural monuments. I also presented a photo gallery to illustrate how the monuments look after 28 years of Armenian control. Also, it is not proposed to write that every monument is destroyed. Armenian authorities renovated the biggest mosque and declared it "Persian". But everything else is in ruins. It is proposed to write that most Azerbaijani monuments were destroyed. Grandmaster 15:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I think we should stay away from adding more detail about cultural destruction, as it detracts from the overall lead (which already devotes more than enough space to the modern conflict) and should be adequately summed up in a more neutral statement about general destruction, unless there are good sources which indicate due weight for it (i.e., they explicitly say that Azerbaijani cultural sites were specifically targeted in a major way, that has had a significant impact on the town's history/features). I haven't seen these sources put forward so far (please point to them if they're hidden somewhere in the walls to text above) – all I've seen are photos, which are primary sources and don't indicate weight for inclusion in the lead by themselves (we need secondary sources talking about deliberate cultural destruction). I understand that Azerbaijani editors may want to include such a statement because there's a sentence about Armenian heritage being destroyed. I have a few points to make regarding this. Firstly, trying to "equal" the other side is not a good way of approaching things (and not supported by policy), it simply causes the conflict to spill over into the article, to its detriment. Secondly, the weight of sources does appear to be different – I've seen a collection of sources discussing the recent alleged destruction of Armenian heritage, but haven't seen many about the destruction of Azeri heritage. I'd encourage editors who think this balance is wrong to examine the sources discussing the alleged destruction of Armenian sites carefully (a number are international sources – are they written by independent groups, or are they written exclusively by Armenian authors/have hallmarks of bias?) Thirdly, I'd prefer to remove the sentence on Armenian destruction, and reduce the paragraph to a broad, summarising sentence, but when I mentioned this in one of the above discussions it didn't seem to pick up much support. I'd be willing to open that discussion again.
    TL;DR: I don't think we should add any more accusations about one side's cultural vandalism unless there are clear, strong sources demonstrating due weight, especially since it seems like an attempt to equalise the accusation of destruction against Azeris which is already in the lead. I think we should be having the opposite discussion, how to reduce this existing accusation of one specific side's cultural vandalism into a neutral, summarising sentence encompassing destruction by both groups during the conflict. Jr8825 • Talk 16:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
    The very first source at User:Grandmaster/Shusha destruction (Sebastian Muth) provides details of Azerbaijani cultural heritage destruction. There is also evidence of British journalists who witnessed how Armenian soldiers used minarets of a historical mosque as a shooting target. In addition, we have lots of Azerbaijani sources that attest to destruction of cultural heritage. Regarding damage to the Armenian cultural heritage, there 5 Armenian sources, all of which are partisan and none of which could be considered reliable, that are used to support the claim of destruction of the Armenian heritage. The only third party source is eurasianet, but it also mentions destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage. So I don't understand why the article lead can contain a mention of Armenian heritage destruction with reference to partisan sources, and nothing on the much larger wholesale destruction of Azerbaijani heritage that is supported by third party sources, such as Muth and same eurasianet? Grandmaster 17:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
    The sources on Armenian cultural heritage destruction:
    1) "Armenian Foreign Ministry Decries Azerbaijani Mutilation of Shushi Ghazanchetsots Cathedral". hetq.am. Why Armenian foreign ministry is a reliable source, and Azerbaijani foreign ministry is not?
    2) "Mayor on Shushi Museum of Fine Arts sculptures' removal: Azerbaijan wants to turn area into football pitch". news.am. Why news.am and Armenian mayor are reliable sources?
    3) "Armenian St. John the Baptist church in Shushi vandalized". en.armradio.am. Public Radio of Armenia. Again, how is this a reliable third party source?
    4) "В уже азербайджанском Шуши у старого армянского храма исчезли купола". eadaily.com (in Russian). This Russian source only quotes the Armenian ombudsman, clergy and bloggers.
    5) "Vandalismus: Bombardierung der Schuschi Kathedrale". dearjv.de (in German). This one is weird. It is Deutsch-Armenische Juristenvereinigung e.V., i.e. some sort of a union of German-Armenian lawyers. How is this a reliable source?
    I don't understand why sources on destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage are subject to a more scrutiny, when pretty much anything goes as a reference for Armenian heritage destruction claims? I agree that cultural heritage destruction claims should be removed from the lead altogether. Grandmaster 17:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
    This is what Azerbaijani foreign ministry has to say about cultural heritage destruction in Shusha: [24] I think it should also be included for balance, since Armenian foreign ministry is used as a reliable source with no attribution. Reza Deghati, photographer for National Geographic, was also a witness of cultural vandalism: [25] Grandmaster 18:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
    Dude, are you seriously still wondering why the word of a government that goes out of its way to deny not only the heritage of the people who've been living there for at least two thousand years, arguing that the Russians "brought them to the region in 1828," but also unabashedly leveling entire cemeteries and cathedrals is still not considered a reliable? It's apples to oranges. While one may question what happened in a few isolated incidents, you can't in good faith compare it to a state-wide policy that engages in Armenophobia and obsessively tries to erase any trace of the people who once lived within its now current borders. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
    What 2000 years? Shusha exists since 1752. And almost complete destruction of the entire town of Shusha, and 7 occupied districts around NK is certainly not an "isolated incident". I think we should keep it to the topic. And regarding sources, both Armenian and Azerbaijani sources are partisan. The question is, should we use them, and if yes, then how? But the logic that we can only use sources from one side and not the other is not in line with Wiki rules. Grandmaster 18:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
    I support Jr8825's notion that we can convert the lead's lop-sided accusations into a neutral summary. With that in mind, I suggest adding something like "During the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the city's cultural heritage has been largely destroyed or left in disrepair" and remove all finger-pointing from the lead in that regard. Brandmeistertalk 22:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
    I am talking about the reason why Azerbaijan's MFA cannot be trusted to even report a weather forecast. We place such a higher threshold for sources coming from it or any other official Azerbaijani source because of its propensity to fudge or otherwise distort the history of this region. No, Armenian sources aren't perfect either, but at least there are actual well-respected scholars who support and vouch for what they say. So again: Azerbaijani sources =/= Armenian/Western sources. It's a false parity. How hard is that to understand? Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 09:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
    To be clear, while I'm open to the possibility of reducing the lead sentence about cultural destruction following the recent war, that needs to be a separate discussion. This RfC is about adding an extra sentence on cultural damage of Azerbaijani monuments (I oppose the change since quality sources haven't been brought up to support it) and a more complicated reword is beyond the RfC's scope. We need to have a proper discussion of the sources which discuss damage to Armenian sites before we move to reduce coverage of the allegations/reword it. Steverci has brought up a strong source regarding damage to Armenian sites above (the eurasianet.org article; incidently, Steverci, it doesn't disprove the allegation that Armenians neglected/damaged Azerbaijani heritage following the 1st NK war, it doesn't explicitly say that didn't happen – we should be careful not to read too much into something it doesn't mention). I'm pretty confident I remembering seeing a number of international sources voicing concern about cultural damage following the recent war which aren't currently being cited in the lead, so it's not wholly limited to Armenian sources, as Grandmaster suggested above. Any changes should be guided by the sources, and there's no rush. Jr8825 • Talk 03:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
    Eurasianet wrote this: In many more cases, though, Armenians simply neglected non-Armenian historic sites, wrote them out of the region’s history, and let them fall into ruin or allowed them to be plundered, a process that Azerbaijanis are now trying to reverse. I also don't think that this supports the claim that Armenians did not deliberately destroy Azerbaijani cultural and historical sites. There are witnesses of how Armenian soldiers were shooting at minarets of Shusha's mosques, and that is certainly not an accident. And the fact that practically every Azerbaijani religious and cultural monument lies in ruins also speaks for itself. It does not happen naturally, unless there was an earthquake or other natural disaster, and there was none in the past 30 years. Grandmaster 08:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
    It's a throwaway remark by a very non-specialist source. You're going to have to try much harder to argue for inclusion of your edits. For everyone's future reference, we can consult Caucasus Heritage Watch, an authoritative page run by highly esteemed Western art historians and archaeologists, to verify some of the more extraordinary claims regarding the fate of cultural art in the region. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 09:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
    That "throwaway non-specialist source" is so far the only more or less third party source on alleged Armenian monument damage as well. As for Caucasus Heritage Watch, it has serious neutrality issues. Somehow it only reports on the damage to Armenian sites, paying no attention to the damage to Azerbaijani sites, which might be explained by its sponsorship by Armenian diaspora: [26] Grandmaster 10:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
    It's unfortunate that you are unable to produce better sources, but that's no excuse to try to argue that that article somehow holds the same weight as specialist sources. It's problematic and falls short of reliable source requirements. Caucasus Heritage Watch is reporting on damage to Armenian sites...because Azerbaijan is presently going out of its way to destroy every cemetery, memorial, church, and historical monument that it cannot fit within its pseudo-scientific state-sponsored historical narrative. And yes, Cornell and Purdue...the true bastions of the Armenian Diaspora. Keep grasping. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
    The fact is that every Azerbaijani memorial, mosque and cemetery has already been destroyed or severely damaged during 28 years of Armenian occupation. Shusha or Agdam are good examples. Here is another source, that describes ethnic cleansing of Azerbaijani territories, mass destruction, illegal settlement of Armenian population, and in particular, destruction of an Azerbaijani cemetery in Shusha, which has a direct relation to this article:
    After taking over most of Karabakh the local Armenians, backed by Armenia proper, overran seven surrounding districts, brutally driving hundreds of thousands of Azeris and Kurds from their homes before looting and burning them to create a buffer between themselves and the rest of Azerbaijan. It is into this dereliction that Armenians are now moving to live.
    Most of them have moved into Lachin, the district which links Karabakh with Armenia. But Mr Goukassian acknowledged that settlers have also been trickling into Kelbajar, from where 60,000 Azeris and Kurds were expelled over high mountains in winter by an Armenian offensive in 1993.
    ......
    In Shusha, in Karabakh, another town which had a largely Azeri population, Armenians say the two ancient mosques are 'Persian work'. Asked how many people lived there before the war, the mayor, Mels Akopjanian, said: 'Honestly, I don't know.'
    Here, too, incoming and returning Armenians are busy roofing and painting the scorched blocks of flats and half-ruined homes left by the fighting. Gravestones in the Azeri cemetery on the edge of town have been methodically smashed and vandalised.

    "To the victor the spoils: Ethnic cleansing in Azerbaijan: James Meek reports from Lachin on the Armenian refugee takeover of Azeri homes and farms in the Nagorno-Karabakh enclave and adjoining districts." The Guardian, 9 June 1997, p. 11.
    I believe destruction of cemeteries also counts as cultural vandalism. Coming to Caucasus Heritage Watch, this source would never report any vandalism to Azerbaijani cemeteries. The reason is the conflict of interest. If you take money from one of the sides, and most of your employees represent their diaspora, then you have a special interest. He who pays the piper calls the tune. But I believe we are going to discuss Armenian sources separately, as Jr8825 proposed. Then we can evaluate each one of them individually, and ask for outside opinions. Grandmaster 19:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks for raising The Guardian article. It confirms what I suspected from the primary sources. We need to look for other similar secondary sources about the 1990s and add this content into the article body before we're able to determine if there's significantly stronger relative weight for Armenian cultural destruction, or whether we should opt for a broader sentence implicating both sides in the lead without going into detail about one side being worse (which seems like the most likely outcome to me). Caucasus Heritage Watch (CHW) is indeed the other international source about destruction of Armenian sites I was thinking of earlier, thanks for reminding me. It's associated with a prestigious US college, and although I admit I harboured suspicious about possible bias when I saw it last time, it looks like it's produced by a joint team of Armenian and international scholars. I think it's a reasonably looking source (others' thoughts welcome). One thing to take into account is that the technology for holding Azerbaijanis to account for cultural destruction wouldn't have been present following the first NK war, but that doesn't mean CHW's work isn't valid.
    To be honest, WP:RFCBEFORE wasn't properly done for this discussion, although that's largely because the previous threads on this were unproductive/didn't focus on sources. Are either of you willing to open a separate thread so we can discuss the sources covering destruction of heritage? As for the broader discussion above, it's going off-topic. Neither side is blameless, both are victims and perpetrators to varying degrees. Let's keep things collegial and focused on the sources, and not go down the rabbit hole of arguing which side is worse. Jr8825 • Talk 19:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
    I agree that neither side is blameless, even though some have hard time admitting it. I agree with starting another discussion about sources on cultural vandalism. I believe every source needs to be discussed individually, to form a consensus whether it is acceptable or not. Some sources are on the brink of being considered partisan, imo. We briefly discussed Caucasus Heritage Watch, and you think that since they used modern technology they could be considered reliable. But how about another source who uses photography to document vandalism? Reza Deghati is a world famous photographer, his photos grace covers of National Geographic and many other top publications. [27] He documented the developments in the region in 1990s and now, so he has photos to compare the condition of the monuments before and after. He posted many of his pictures on social media: [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] Posts on social media could be used in certain circumstances. Do you think Deghati could be used as a source? Grandmaster 20:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
    C'mon Grandmaster, I'm sure you're aware they're not the same. One source is WP:SELFPUB by a non-expert (and even if he were a subject matter expert, photos are primary sources – we don't write content based solely off images, you can't cite a photo for important claims because there's always the risk of manipulation, and we as editors would be at risk of SYNTH/OR in our interpretation of the photos). The other is funded by two highly respected universities, and includes three professors on its team. It's safe to presume both sources are to some degree partisan, but only one is reliable despite being non-neutral. Jr8825 • Talk 20:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
    It is not just photos, but also textual descriptions. But anyway, thanks for your opinion. I will search for more print sources on this topic. Grandmaster 20:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
    @Grandmaster: I was having a closer look at Caucasus Heritage Watch, and you may be interested in page 19 of the September report, which says that they're in the process of cataloguing damage to Islamic sites in NK since the 1st NK war, with a view to establishing when past damage took place. It may be useful to see how that project develops. Despite the partisan funders, I've been impressed by the output I've just been reading from CHW, and I sincerely hope the project develops further in the non-partisan direction it's promising to. Jr8825 • Talk 20:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
    To tell the truth, I'm highly skeptical about their work. They had 28 years and full access to the territory, but showed no interest in Azerbaijani or Islamic sites. What happened now that they have suddenly become interested? Probably it is just an attempt to make themselves look neutral, but I won't be surprised if all the monuments become "Persian" in a region with no Persian population. I note that they describe as a damaged site Taza Mahalla Mosque in Shusha, and while they admit that it was formerly a mosque, they present it as a Geology Museum. Obviously, it is not an appropriate location for a geology museum, and Azerbaijan will not use it as such. So it is kind of strange that they present it as a museum, and not as a place of worship. Also, one of the project members Lori Khatchadourian tried to give strange justification to vandalism and complete destruction of occupied Azerbaijani territories, which makes me doubt her impartiality: [33] Grandmaster 21:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
    It was founded in 2020, following the recent war. There are several other academics involved – basically I haven't seen anything to indicate it isn't a reliable non-neutral source, at a minimum. Jr8825 • Talk 22:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
    That's the point. Why was it created only in 2020? Was there no need for such a project before 2020? In any case, I respect your opinion, and I would like to take your advice and create a new thread where we can discuss sources on damage to the Armenian heritage. Would that be Ok? Grandmaster 23:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shusha/Archive_12&oldid=1058874763"