Talk:Shusha/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Sources on Armenian heritage destruction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is what Azerbaijani cemeteries in Shusha look like: [1] You can scroll through the gallery and see the photos of ruined Azerbaijani cemeteries, destroyed graves, scattered bones. British journalists saw the process that resulted in this. If we use Armenian Foreign Ministry, we can use AZERTAC as well, I think. Grandmaster 11:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just to note, I never proposed to change consensus version about Azerbaijani heritage destruction in the lead. My comment only concerned the use of state owned sources in the article. And indeed, it is better to abstain from discussing each other. I just would like to point out that the sources on Armenian heritage do not talk about destruction. The words "manipulate the heritage" pointed out by ZaniGiovanni do not mean to destroy. HRW does not say the church was destroyed. it reports the damage to the structure. And I do not see CHW mentioning any destruction of historical heritage in Shusha. So in my opinion it is better to find a better wording, in line with what the sources say. Grandmaster 15:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Converting the cathedral into anything other than Armenian Apostolic is an example of cultural heritage destruction. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Destruction is when something is turned into a ruin. Cathedral is not converted into anything else, and it still stands. Grandmaster 10:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster: destroy

• to ruin the structure, organic existence, or condition of
• to put out of existence

The Azeris have been accused of changing the structure and removing Armenian traits of the cathedral, so it's appropriate to say destroyed. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Was the cathedral turned into a ruin? Was it put out of existence? The answer to both is no. That means there was no destruction, and sources do not mention it either. Grandmaster 08:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The cathedral was ruined by deliberate missile strikes, its original structure is being changed, and traces of Armenian heritage are being removed. The word destruction is appropriate here, and I'm going with what dictionaries say. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

This source, Christianity Today, does verbatim say that Armenian cultural heritage monuments, specifically the Kanach Zham Church were destroyed. Christianity Today is a publication that has an established good reputation for factual reporting[2] and is considered to be generally reliable and analytical.[3] They’re also surprisingly neutral in their articles as you can see in this one it provides both an Armenian and Azerbaijani perspective while also giving reliable facts. This is what the source says about cultural heritage monuments in Shusha:

Jayson Casper (April 23, 2021). Daniel M. Harrell (ed.). "Anticipating Biden on Genocide, Armenians Fear Cultural One in Azerbaijan". Christianity Today. Washington D.C. ISSN 0009-5753.

Last month, satellite imagery allegedly revealed the destruction of Shusha’s Armenian Genocide Memorial, constructed in 2009.

Following the cease-fire, Shusha’s Kanach Zham (Green Chapel) of St. John the Baptist, built in 1818, had its towers removed. And last month, aerial footage showed the entire structure destroyed.

The caucasus heritage watch source on page 19 also confirms “indications of continued destruction at Kanach Zham.” Therefore the vernacular is correct as it is. TagaworShah (talk) 08:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The BBC report says church was "damaged", not destroyed:

Armenia has accused Azerbaijan of targeting a historic cathedral in Nagorno-Karabakh shelled during fighting over the disputed region.

Photos showed damage to both the interior and exterior of the Holy Saviour Cathedral in Shusha city.

A section of the roof collapsed, rubble was strewn on the floor, pews were knocked over and the interior was covered in dust from parts of the building's limestone walls that had been hit. [4]

Christianity Today is not a top reliable source such as NYT or BBC. It is a little known evangelical Christian periodical. I don't think that it has the same authority as BBC. Destruction is when a building is reduced to a pile of rubble. The churches still stand. Grandmaster 09:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Grandmaster: They are referring to the Holy Saviour Cathedral that was targeted by missle strikes not the Kanach Zham church. Christianity Today is not “little known” by any means and just because it doesn’t have the same circulation as other huge periodicals doesn’t make it unreliable. TagaworShah (talk) 14:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't find Christianity Today's coverage to be neutral. It clearly has a religious bias. It says nothing about total destruction of Shusha and 7 occupied districts by Armenian forces, and quotes other sources accusing Azerbaijan. That certainly is not a balanced coverage. And it cannot be put on the same level as mainstream sources like BBC. Plus, the quotes that you provide are linked in the CT article to the articles in Armenian media, in particular Asbarez, which is their sole source for the claims. How is this neutral or reliable? Grandmaster 17:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Grandmaster: Again a source having a bias doesn’t make it unreliable, all sources are biased in one shape and form, CT is undoubtedly reliable and what it says is confirmed on page 19 of the CHW source. Them linking a video of the destruction which happens to be on Asbarez doesn’t mean that it is unreliable, they did not attribute that claim to Asbarez or cite them, they simply linked a video. Plus, they did give the Azerbaijani perspective one each issue they covered, this is just an article not a 352 page book, it’s natural that they don’t cover everything, that doesn’t make them biased, but that shouldn’t matter anyway as biased reliable sources are perfectly acceptable to use anyway. TagaworShah (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

When you link a source, it means that you use it as a reference. It is quite obvious that these people never set a foot in the region, they just copy what Armenian sources write. And plus, the publication itself is not authoritative. Grandmaster 19:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Grandmaster: Says who? Because according to Ad Fontes Media, CT is a reliable source that is analytical in its coverage. The article was linking to the video and aerial images which happened to be on Asbarez. The images are primary sources, and CT, a reliable secondary source evaluated them and said the church was destroyed and again the Cornell University CHW confirms this on page 19. TagaworShah (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not use Ad Fontes Media. CT simply copies what other sources say. Kanach Zham claim is linked to these 2 Armenian sites as references: [5] [6] It does not have an international reputation for accuracy. We should avoid such sources. Grandmaster 19:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

There needs to be a consensus for CT being unreliable, because nothing in that article is incorrect or even really disputable. We allow Daily Sabah to be used as a source even though it has a clear pro-Islam bias, no reason Christianity Today can’t be as well.

“Damaged” is consistent with the header saying the Armenian cultural heritage, not the entire building itself, is being destroyed. And CT is not listed as a perennial source, you need a consensus for it to be considered unreliable. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Where did we use Daily Sabah? If it is Ok to use it, let's use it. And the word "damaged" has a meaning. You cannot say that a standing building is destroyed. It can only be damaged. Grandmaster 19:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Grandmaster: Again says who? Feel free to take CT to the reliable sources notice board for examination but it fits all the criteria of WP:RS and does have a strong reputation. Daily Sabah is reliable for everything except stuff that the Turkish government could have a conflict of interest in per perennial sources so it wouldn’t apply here. But I encourage you to take CT to the reliable sources noticeboard. I already explained what the linking to the Armenian sites means. TagaworShah (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Just look at the source, in their own words: Christianity Today is the source for those eager to engage the world for Christ and curious about the people, events, and trends shaping the church and culture. How is this neutral? They admit looking at things from a religious perspective, and the article contains ridiculous statements from some guy called Rene Leonian, claiming that “As in 1915, the Turco-Azeris are committing not only a human genocide against the Armenians but also a cultural genocide”. The fact that it would allow a demeaning term like Turco-Azeris already speaks for itself. And linking means a hyperlink reference, i.e. they take the information from the Armenian websites. I hope Jr8825 could help us with evaluating the reliability of this source. Grandmaster 20:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Grandmaster: Biased doesn’t mean it’s not reliable. Also, I hate to break it to you, but a lot of scholarly books use the word “Turco-Azeris” too, that doesn’t mean saying that makes it not reliable. For example, a lot of reliable sources use the word “gypsy” to describe Romani people which many like myself find offensive, does that make it unreliable? no. But yes by all means i’d love to hear outside input from Jr8825 and any other editors. I still think it would be a good idea to take it to the noticeboard though, at least to solve any future disputes about its reliability. TagaworShah (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I would agree that Christianity Today should be avoided in this context. They describe themselves as "evangelical publication for news and opinion", with no expertise in history, archaeology, culturology or warfare. Jr8825's opinion is welcome. Brandmeister^talk 21:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Outside opinions can be nice, still CT is not listed as a perennial source, you need a consensus for it to be considered unreliable. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Just a note, this article falls under their news and reporting section not opinion and being Evangelical doesn’t make them automatically unreliable. TagaworShah (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Brockhaus ref doesn't check out?

In the "Etymology" section[7] one reads:

"(...) which literally means "Shusha village"[28] in the Azerbaijani language.[29]".

As far as I can see, ref 29 (Brockhaus) doesn't cover the "...in the Azerbaijani language" statement. If you think I'm mistaken, please link the exact Russian words as I guess might have missed something. For the record; although not specifically inserted behind it, ref 29 does cover the "which literally means "Shusha village" ("... и получила свое название от селения Шушикент..."). Ref 28 on the other hand, which was specifically inserted behind these very same words, is listed as non-reliable per WP:RSN and thus should be removed.

There are good refs out there that could support the "(...) in the Azerbaijani language [29]" statement if ref 29 gets removed. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I've checked the Brockhaus reference, it belongs to the "the town's name comes from the nearby village Shushikent" statement ("получила свое название от селения Шушикент"), so adjusted the placement accordingly. The "Shusha village in the Azerbaijani language" statement is correctly sourced to ref 29, so stays there as before. Brandmeister^talk 16:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good now. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Etymology in the lead

TagaworShah, the sentence In these accounts, the name of the town originated from a nearby Armenian village called Shosh or Shushikent is just one of several possible explanations that we already mention in the Etymology section. I think there's no point in presenting just one version in the lead when we have several, so suggest we remove that sentence from the lead. Alternatively, we can write The town's name has several possible etymologies. Thoughts? Brandmeister^talk 17:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Brandmeister: My friend, I understand the confusion but that’s not actually an etymology. Etymology would be the origin of the word itself not where the city got its name. The etymologies presented in the article are not mutually exclusive with the explanation that the city got its name from Shushakend. The etymologies still apply either way. See the Shusha in Shushakend or Shosh or whatever name you would like to call it is the exact same origin and therefore follows the exact same explanations, that sentence is the dominant sourced explanation on how the town of Shusha got its name, not where the name Shusha comes from. I hope this helps. TagaworShah (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

We currently state in the lead: "see § Etymology for alternative explanations". This means we have different explanations for the town's name below, including New Persian Shīsha unrelated to Shushakend. So, per WP:UNDUE, as long as we want to mention etymology in the lead, it would be better to leave a link to the section without singling out one particular explanation. Brandmeister^talk 18:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Brandmeister: Again, the etymology of the Shusha in both Shusha and Shushakend is exactly the same, whichever way you put it both can come from Persian Shisha or any of the other explanation, they are not mutually exclusive, the link to alternate explanations is to show the minority view that Shushakend got its name from Shusha which they believe is the older settlement, that is a minority view so it’s not included in the lead. Shushakend literally means Shusha village. it’s the same word so it has the same possible etymologies. That statement is not an etymology it is just an explanation on HOW the settlement got its name not where the name came from linguistically. Got it? TagaworShah (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The Oxford Concise Dictionary of World Place-Names, that we cite, does not mention Shushakend at all. It explicitly says the town name has a different origin: The name stems from a challenge laid down by the Persian Shah Muhammad Aga who, as his army approached, said to Khan Ibrahim: ‘God is pouring stones on thy head. Sit ye not then in thy fortress of glass.’. This means Shusha fortress was already there when this happened. As long as we have at least two different versions, we should not prefer any in the lead. Brandmeister^talk 18:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Brandmeister: I don’t think you’re understanding what i’m saying. That’s an etymology. There are no etymologies mentioned in the lead. Let me give you an example, New York gets it’s name from Old York in the United Kingdom, but that is not its etymology, the etymology would be the same etymology as York as an etymology is the origin of the word. So both New York and York have the same etymology for the word York but New York got its name from the older settlement. Same thing here, both Shusha and Shushakend are the same word “Shusha” just like both New York and York are the same word “York.” Saying New York got its name from Old York doesn’t negate the etymology of the word York just like saying Shusha got its name from Shushakend doesn’t negate the etymology of the word Shusha. There is no etymology in the lead, there is already proper attribution for the Shushakend statement saying that “In these accounts.” We are not “preferring” any version, all the versions work because it is the EXACT SAME WORD, please don’t make me repeat myself again. TagaworShah (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

We rely on what reliable sources say, not our personal interpretation of what is or what is not "etymology". Also, per Shushikend: The Armenian historian Leo considered it likely that the village Shosh received its name from Shushi, which he considered the older settlement. As far as I can see, the only source in the article that supports the statement "the name of the town originated from a nearby Armenian village called Shosh or Shushikent" is Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary. The Oxford Concise Dictionary of World Place-Names has a different version, noting that previously the town was called Panahabad. So better to drop this issue off the lead and let the Etymology section handle it in detail. Brandmeister^talk 19:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Brandmeister: Yeah that’s not original research at all, that’s simply why etymology is versus what it is not, at this point it’s simply a matter of WP:COMPETENCE. Saying that the Everett-Heaths etymology contradicts the Brockhaus source is your own original research, the Brockhaus source is not used for the origin of the word Shusha, only to see which settlement, Shusha or Shushakend, got the word from the other. There is already a link to alternate explanations, those explanations(Armenian historian Leo) contradict the majority view that Shusha was founded by Panah Ali Khan, that’s why they are not given weight and we say in the accounts that Panah Ali Khan was the founder of Shusha, the name came from Shushakend. Attempting to use different etymologies to discredit this is original research, they are not mutually exclusive unless you can find a source that specifically states that the “Shusha” in Shushakend has a different etymology than Shusha, your argument is simply unconvincing, sorry. TagaworShah (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Tagawor, please refrain from violating WP:OR and WP:CRUSH. Using condescending words such "got it?", "please don’t make me repeat myself again" and unnecessary usage of <CAPS LOCK> are no good either. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, since you’re an editor on Russian encyclopedia, you can check there for more sources that confirm that name Shusha comes from Shushakend, there are over 7 reliable sources, clearly a majority view. TagaworShah (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: I’m a mobile editor, using Caps is the only way I can show emphasis on a talk page. And how are my arguments of Bad Faith exactly? That is the consensus version that is supported by the majority of reliable sources and was agreed upon on extensive discussion. TagaworShah (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@TagaworShah: Regardless of whether it comes from Shushakend or not, we should explain where the town name ultimately originates. If it's from Shushakend, then why Shushakend was named so? It's about the ultimate origin, not possibly intermediate names like Shushakend. That's why I propose to leave such complexities for the Etymology section. Hope I made myself clear now. Brandmeister^talk 20:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Brandmeister: Thank you for understanding that statement is not about etymology but about which settlement got its name from the other. As you said, there are various different etymologies so we shouldn’t include that in the lead. You ask why Shushakend was named that why, well that has more to do with etymology and as you said there are different opinions. However, the fact that the name of Shusha, which i’m sure you know was previously called Panahabad, was derived from Shushakend is supported by the majority of reliable sources which you can find in the Russian wikipedia, i’ll add them here if you’d like as well. The ultimate origin belongs to the etymology section as there are multiple different possibilities. The settlement which got its name from the other can be in the lead as it is supported by the vast majority of reliable sources and we have a link to the minority views as well. I believe this was all discussed in the lengthy discussions to define the section as well. TagaworShah (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The Russian Wikipedia in ru:Шуша#Происхождение_названия actually shows that the Shushakend version is just one of at least three possibilities, the other being Persian and Azerbaijani version. There is no prevailing single etymology, each version in Russian Wiki is supported by at least two different sources. Besides, the Shushakend version is not compatible with the town's original name, Panahabad, as it's unclear why would the name Panahabad be changed in favor of an adjacent village. So this issue is quote complex for a single sentence in the lead and should be either removed from the lead or reworded accordingly to reflect this complexity. Brandmeister^talk 21:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Brandmeister: Again, and this applies to the Russian encyclopedia too, the name Shusha has different etymologies yes, but both the towns Shushakend and Shusha contain the word “Shusha”, the Russian wikipedia provides multiple reliable sources that say that Shusha got its name from the nearby village, it doesn’t matter why, if that’s what the sources say, then that’s what we write. Shusha getting its name from Shushakend does not have anything to do with etymology, it is sourced extensively, the etymology of the word Shusha is discussed in the proper section but which settlement got the name Shusha from the other is discussed in the lead as we have a general Academic consensus for that. TagaworShah (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, both Shushakend and Shusha contain the word “Shusha”. But there are multiple sources not mentioning Shushakend at all, when it comes to the town name "Shusha". So once again, we have to account for all possibilities per WP:DUE and let a separate section explain them. Brandmeister^talk 22:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Brandmeister: Glad we can finally agree that the “Shusha” in both Shusha and Shushakend has the same etymology. The thing is sources about the etymology of the word like Everett-Heath are naturally not going to mention Shushakend, they are simply talking about the etymology of the word “Shusha.” The question remains there are two neighboring settlements with the name Shusha, one has to come from the other, the majority of reliable sources says that Shusha gets its name from Shushakend, a minority of sources which these sources also disagree with the foundation of the city by Panah Ali Khan, say that Shusha gave Shushakend its name. Since we’ve reached consensus on the foundation of the city by Panah Ali Khan then we can also include the Shushakend statement as it is similarly supported by the grand majority of reliable sources. We already provided due weight through the attribution “In these accounts” which makes clear that there is another alternative, the one proposed by Leo. I hope this clears everything up. TagaworShah (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The ones that say Shusha gets its name from Shushakend are not in majority. In the Russian wikiarticle which has more sources on it than we do, I count 4 different sources mentioning the Shusha-Shushakend connection (excluding Shosh name). Other versions are supported by a grand total of 5 different sources. So it's not as clearcut as New York vs York and MOS:LEADREL applies. Brandmeister^talk 23:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Brandmeister: Again, there are only two options, either Shusha got its name from Shushakend or the other way around. The other two options you’re referring to are in reference to the ETYMOLOGY(using caps because i’m a mobile editor for emphasis) this is about which settlement gave the other it’s name. The grand majority of the sources say that Shushakend gave Shusha its name, only a small minority, basically just Leo, say the opposite. We are not going off of the the etymology of the word Shusha as that word is present in both names, we are going off of which settlement got that name from the other. The “other versions” do not contradict this, as you even admitted they do not mention Shushakend since they are talking about the word origin not which settlement had the name “Shusha” first. They are not mutually exclusive, the vast majority of reliable sources say that Shusha got its name from Shushakend, the “Shusha” in Shushakend can be explained by either the persian Shisha, Armenain etymology, Russian and so on, that’s unclear so we don’t include, what is however supported by the majority of sources is not the etymology of “Shusha” but that the village “Shusha” gave its name to the city, just like the “York” in New York comes from the older settlement. TagaworShah (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Brandmeister: It has already been explained to you here in the talk, you have no consensus to change the version that was agreed upon through extensive discussion. The vast majority of sources say that Shushakend gave its name to Shusha, bringing up the etymology of the word Shusha is plain WP:SYNTHESIS. The only other explanation is that Shusha gave its name to Shushakend and that’s only if Shusha was the older settlement which as we can see by the majority of the sources in the article, that’s not the case, please provide some more convincing arguments before changing the consensus version as we have already discussed your initial argument extensively and no consensus has been reached. Also, why did you remove “Armenian” in front of village, none of the sources dispute Shushakend being an Armenian village, that move was clearly of bad faith, let me remind you of the Arbitration enforcement for AA topics. TagaworShah (talk) 09:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I would like to also remind that the current lead was a result of an extensive discussion. Any controversial changes being made should be discussed beforehand and agreed upon. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary that we cite states: Shusha was founded in 1752 by Panakh-Ali-bek and got its name from the village of Shushikent, located not far away and existing to this day. No mention of Shahnazar or that the village is Armenian, so per Wikipedia:Verifiability we can't stay "In these accounts". The Brockhaus Dictionary is one of the sources that do not mention Shahnazar. The cited sources should be reflected accurately, in this case the correct sentence that is in line with the cited Brockhaus Dictionary would be something like: In some accounts, the name of the town originated from a nearby village called Shushikend. Brandmeister^talk 13:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Brandmeister: There is currently a RFC regarding Shahnazar, that’s not something to discuss here.

Russell, James R. (2004). Armenian and Iranian studies. Harvard Armenian Texts and Studies. Vol. 9. Cambridge: Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Harvard University: Harvard University Press. p. 1142. ISBN 9780935411195.

For a scene strikingly analogous to the Sasanian relief of investiture appears on a well-known Armenian tombstone from the village of Shosh, east of Shushi (now a city, though named after Shosh, from which villagers were sent to populate its new fortress in the 18th century)

The Caucasian calendar for 1846 also says that the city got its name from the nearby Armenian village. There are over 10 citations in the history section of this article mentioning an Armenian village that was older than Shusha but had roughly the same name. This is what the majority of sources say, Again there are only two options, either Shusha got its name from Shushakend or the other way around. The other way around doesn’t match with the Panah Ali Khan foundation but the first way does and is supported by the majority of the sources. That’s why it says “In these accounts,” the section was defined through extensive discussion, which you were literally a part of, why now do you want to change the stable lead? TagaworShah (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

RFC on Foundation of Town

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The strongest arguments, based on sources, are for Option 1. Would the discussion participants please effectuate the change? It may be necessary to provide one or more citations. Jehochman ^Talk 21:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

Survey (Foundation of Town)

• Option 1. For sources on foundation of the town, please see User:Grandmaster/Shusha. I collected them in one place for convenience. I think it is obvious that most sources do not mention alliance, it is the point of view of some of the sources. Some sources state that Melik Shahnazar recommended the place for the town/fortress, but being an advisor is not the same as the alliance. Therefore it makes sense to present both versions separately. Grandmaster 08:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 As I thoroughly explained at Talk:Shusha#Alliance?, option 2 is synthesis, where the second part of the sentence starting with "attributing this" is not supported by sources cited in the first part. The sentence should be split to match cited sources per WP:Verifiability and WP:Due weight. Brandmeister^talk 11:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1, incorporating Jr8825's comment below. I've reviewed sources mentioned in the discussion above (including Hewsen) and the ones listed on Grandmaster's page and I think it's a fair summary. Alaexis_¿question? 17:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 Of all the sources listed in User:Grandmaster/Shusha, there are 10/14 that are referring to the fortress. Only 5/14 also refer to the founding of the town/city, and they are all either Azeri or Islamic sources making that claim. It's only natural that the sentence more properly reflect this, because there are many sources confirming the town/city is much older. The town/city itself being founded in the 1750s has much weaker due weight. There can also be no doubt about the significance of Shahnazar, who is mentioned in both Armenian and Azeri sources, and even the most modern source of Thomas de Waal, who refers to the relationship as an alliance. --Steverci (talk) 02:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC) Vote of indef blocked user stricken. Jehochman ^Talk 21:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2, Shahnazar is mentioned in both Armenian and Azerbaijani sources, De Waal also calls it an alliance despite usually being pro-Azerbaijani. As already pointed out above, most of the complied sources by Grandmaster about 1752 founding are only referring to the fortress. I would like to emphasize that Vasily Potto (one of the outside sources) differentiates between the fortress and the town. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 as it gives balanced representation of the foundation of the city and castle, whereas the first option gives undue weight to Panah Ali’s role. --Armatura (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion (Foundation of Town)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  And saying that Potto only talks about the fortress is clearly wrong. In fact, Potto says: "There is still an inscription on the wall of the town mosque, showing that the town and fortress were founded by Panakh-khan in 1167 Hijri year". As for de Waal, he does not say that the town was built in alliance with someone. De Waal says that Panah Khan "cemented his position by a marriage alliance with one of the five Armenian meliks". This concerns not the foundation of the town, but political actions. Grandmaster 14:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Mkrtchyan was a prominent Armenian nationalist, one of the separatist activists in Nagorno-Karabakh. Quote: He was one of the organizers of the Artsakh movement, it is no coincidence that his works concerned not only the history and culture of Artsakh, but also the liberation struggle of the Artsakh people for freedom and independence. This person wrote such works as "Nagorno-Karabakh: Anatomy of the Genocide Committed by Azerbaijan: (1920-1988)", published in Stepanakert in 2003. How can we take seriously a person writing books about non-existent genocide in Nagorno-Karabakh? He is not just partisan, but extremely partisan. Grandmaster 18:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Shahen Mkrtchyan has published academic works and has been cited by international authors; [8]. Shahen Mkrtchyan has been cited by Edinburgh University Press book, University of Michigan source, and University of Utah ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Nersesov again

The article says at present that Nersesov was Azerbaijani. Do we have a source on this, or it is a WP:OR? We certainly have sources on him being an Armenian. Grandmaster 18:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this our attention once again. Nersesov obviously wasn't Azerbaijani/Azeri, that's just a plain violation of WP:VER. Two proposals in line with Wikipedia's guidelines:

• "19th-century sources such as Mirza Jamal Javanshir Qarabaghi, Mirza Adigozal bey, Abbasgulu Bakikhanov, and Mirza Yusuf Nersesov, attest to the foundation of the town in 1750–1752 (...)"
• "Azerbaijani sources, including Mirza Jamal Javanshir Qarabaghi, Mirza Adigozal bey, and Abbasgulu Bakikhanov, and Mirza Yusuf Nersesov, attest to the foundation of the town 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 Karabakh Khanate (1748–1822), which comprised both Lowland and Highland Karabakh.[50][51] Mirza Yusuf Nersesov, a writer of Armenian origin who grew up in Iran, served there as a civil servant, and converted to Islam (...)"

I think we should/could choose either one of these options. Or something similar along these lines. I listed these proposals some time ago as well.[9] PS: I haven't read the material written by Nersesov himself in detail, but if I recall correctly, the so-called narrative of him helping Panah-Ali Khan Javanshir was mentioned by Nersesov too. This might be valuable information that should/could perhaps be integrated into the article. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions LouisAragon. As I already said in AE where last time this was discussed, I'm fine with rewording as long as it's properly attributed, which the second version does. Best, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the first version is better. This article does not need extensive details on Nersesov, his conversion to Islam and back to Christianity. The reader can find all these details about his life in the article about him. Grandmaster 19:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The article says at present that Nersesov was Azerbaijani. Do we have a source on this, or it is a WP:OR? We certainly have sources on him being an Armenian. – Are these your words or not? Not sure what you're trying to say, second version addresses all the concerns, including why you opened this thread. While the first version fails on attribution, and with 4 of the 5 sources being Azeri, we sure do need proper attribution. Those sources aren't just your regular "19th century sources", that's not how we attribute Az or Arm sources.

And the reason Nersesov is attributed as well is because he isn't just your typical "Armenian view/source", which was also discussed extensively in this AE case. If I remember correctly, you didn't comment after a prolonged discussion regarding Nersesov, and I don't wish to repeat what I already said in that case. Hence, considering all of this and our previous discussions, second version suits better. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

According to the rules, we must write what the sources say. The sources say that Nersesov was an Armenian. Any alternative claim requires a source. No source means we have nothing to talk about. And second version is no good because it still lists Nersesov as an Azerbaijani, with no proof, and adds personal details unrelated to the town of Shusha. We can start an RFC on this, but I think it would save people's time if we resolved this without getting larger community involved. Grandmaster 10:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

And second version is no good because it still lists Nersesov as an Azerbaijani – hmmm, where in 2nd version can I find this lol? I don't think "a writer of Armenian origin" means Azerbaijani, you need to read carefully.

and adds personal details unrelated to the town of Shusha. – It's part of the attribution and it's fine to me, I already stated why multiple times. Nersesov needs proper attribution if you want rewording. Alternatively, if you don't like these “details”, why do you want his ethnicity to be mentioned at all? For Az sources (especially when 4 out of 5 are such), I think it's important to list that well... those are Azeri sources and not just some random “19th century sources”, but I don't understand how Nersesov's ethnicity is relevant here. I would support the second version with no mention of Nersesov's ethnicity if his “details” are what's bothering you. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Second proposed version starts with Azerbaijani sources, including Mirza Jamal Javanshir Qarabaghi, Mirza Adigozal bey, Abbasgulu Bakikhanov, and Mirza Yusuf Nersesov. Why is he listed as Azerbaijani, when he was an Armenian? And what do Nersesov's conversions to Islam and back to Christianity have to do with the history of Shusha? It is enough to link to the article about him. I also don't see how his ethnicity is relevant here, he is just one of the 19th century sources that wrote about foundation of the town. Which is why I proposed as a compromise not to mention ethnicity of those chroniclers. Alternatively, the part on Nersesov should look like: Azerbaijani sources, including Mirza Jamal Javanshir Qarabaghi, Mirza Adigozal bey, Abbasgulu Bakikhanov, as well as Mirza Yusuf Nersesov, an ethnic Armenian writer who grew up in Iran, served there as a civil servant, converted to Islam, and back to Christianity upon his return to Karabakh .... The question is, why does the article about the town of Shusha need all those details about this person's life in Iran and his religious conversions? What useful information about the town does it provide? Grandmaster 21:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

It's called proper attribution? And you were explained why in this AE case, please don't ask the same questions again. You didn't have anything to say back then, and after I and a third party user explained the reason Nersesov isn't just an "Armenian view/source", you're asking the same questions again.

Which is why I proposed as a compromise not to mention ethnicity of those chroniclers. – That's not a compromise, 3 out of 4 sources are Azeri and they should be attributed properly. Saying "19th century sources" doesn't cut it.

Second proposed version starts with Azerbaijani sources, including Mirza Jamal Javanshir Qarabaghi, Mirza Adigozal bey, Abbasgulu Bakikhanov, and Mirza Yusuf Nersesov - That seems to be a typo I guess because Nersesov is listed after that sentence. Was it a typo LouisAragon? I think the second version was intended to be written this way:

• "Azerbaijani sources, including Mirza Jamal Javanshir Qarabaghi, Mirza Adigozal bey, and Abbasgulu Bakikhanov attest to the foundation of the town 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 Karabakh Khanate (1748–1822), which comprised both Lowland and Highland Karabakh.[50][51] Mirza Yusuf Nersesov, a writer of Armenian origin who grew up in Iran, served there as a civil servant, and converted to Islam (...)"

Neresesov's later re-conversion to Christianity isn't relevant here because if I'm not mistaken, his work was done while he was essentially an assimilated Iranian Muslim. And alternatively, we can just leave out his ethnicity because Nersesov's ethnicity isn't relevant here:

• "Azerbaijani sources, including Mirza Jamal Javanshir Qarabaghi, Mirza Adigozal bey, and Abbasgulu Bakikhanov attest to the foundation of the town 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 Karabakh Khanate (1748–1822), which comprised both Lowland and Highland Karabakh.[50][51] Mirza Yusuf Nersesov (...)"

Bottom line is when 3 of 4 sources are Azeri, we need proper attribution and stating that oh "19th century sources" hold this view doesn't cut it, those aren't some random 3rd party sources (which that wording can certainly imply), those are Az sources. Only Nersesov technically isn't Azeri but isn't the typical "Armenian view/source" either, hence either we attribute him properly given the context or don't mention his "details" at all. I'm trying to compromise, and either of these two are fine to me. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Just to note that Nersesov wrote his work more than 20 years after his return from Persia to Karabakh, and conversion back to Christianity. By that time he was already a Russian citizen, and his work was part of the Russian government's efforts to document the history of the region, same as other Karabakh-nameh written by other Karabakh natives. Grandmaster 15:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@ZaniGiovanni: It indeed was a typo, thanks for letting me know! - LouisAragon (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I'd chose option #1 myself. Mostly because a) this article is about a specific city b) Much of the content in this article is already really obscure to the average Wikipedia reader; we should keep it as concise as possible. If no one objects, I will adjust the content per WP:BOLD. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  I agree. It is better to keep the article focused on topic. Grandmaster 15:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  I'm fine with not mentioning Nersesov's details, but I believe it should be attributed and noted that most of the sources are Azerbaijani because as I already said, 3 out of 4 sources are in fact Azeri. The first option doesn't address this and just says "19th century sources" which isn't a proper attribution and can give a false impression, i.e. that the claim is supported by 3rd party 19th century sources as an example. To address this issue, the following would be my suggestion as a compromise, with no details of Nersesov:

  • "Azerbaijani sources, including Mirza Jamal Javanshir Qarabaghi, Mirza Adigozal bey, and Abbasgulu Bakikhanov attest to the foundation of the town 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 Karabakh Khanate (1748–1822), which comprised both Lowland and Highland Karabakh.[50][51] Mirza Yusuf Nersesov (...)" ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  • But then we should mention that Nersesov was Armenian. We have no sources to say otherwise, and we cannot engage in OR. If we go into details about those local sources, it makes no sense to mention ethnicity of some and leave it out for others. Grandmaster 09:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

    But then we should mention that Nersesov was Armenian. We have no sources to say otherwise, and we cannot engage in OR. - There is no OR when we don't mention any of his details. And for all I know, he could be mentioned as a Qajar source.

    If we go into details about those local sources, it makes no sense to mention ethnicity of some and leave it out for others. – It does actually make sense, because 3 out of 4 sources are Azeri, stating 'Azerbaijnai sources' is a correct attribution. Meanwhile, I don't see how Nersesov's details are relevant here, he's just one source from 4 sources, and there isn't a reason to mention his ethnicity at all. And as I said, he could be stated as a Qajar source for all I know, but that isn't relevant either. Leaving out singe author's irrelevant details (as you said yourself) is correct, but when overwhealming majority of sources are in fact Azeri, attributing them as such is more than suitable. Hope this helps to understand the difference. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

    Nersesov was not Qajar, he was Russian citizen at the time of writing his work. According to sources, he was Armenian. We should either mention the ethnicity of the authors according to sources, or not. It is simple. Grandmaster 10:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The sources do need proper attribution but there is an easy fix to all of this. My suggestion is simply adjusting the word order to make it clear that Nersesov wasn’t Azerbaijani. For example;

Azerbaijani sources, including Mirza Jamal Javanshir Qarabaghi, Mirza Adigozal bey and, Abbasgulu Bakikhanov, as well as, Mirza Yusuf Nersesov, attest to the foundation of the town in 1750–1752…

Easy fix with proper attribution given and doesn’t go into excessive detail. TagaworShah (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with this. Not any details apart from mentioning that 3 of 4 (majority) sources are in fact Azeri, and manages to keep that relevant attribution. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that TagaworShah's version makes it clear that Nersesov was not an Azerbaijani. Mentioning Nersesov's actual ethnicity will. I think we should mention that Nersesov was Armenian, because that is what the sources say. Mentioning ethnicity of some and omitting it for this one person makes no sense. I really do not understand the problem with mentioning this person's ethnicity, despite the sources being very clear about it. As a compromise, I proposed to not mentioning ethnicity of any authors, but if that is not acceptable, then we need to mention ethnicity of all authors according to reliable sources. Or we can start another RFC and ask Wikipedia community about it. Grandmaster 11:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Because Nersesov is a single author and his details as you even said yourself aren't relevant. Your issue so far seems to be "why we attribute Azeri sources then", which I already explained multiple times. If the overwhelming majority of sources (3 out of 4) are in fact Azeri, it's more than suitable to attribute them as such, while Nersesov is a single author and a single source, his details aren't relevant. And TagaworShah's version does make it clear that Nersesov isn't an Azeri, quote: "Azerbaijani sources (listing sources),... as well as Yusuf Nersesov...", this is basic English, how it isn't obvious that he clearly is outside of listed Az sources? If you want to run another RfC that's fine, but I'm sure most of the people would agree that if 3 out of 4 sources are Azeri, there is nothing wrong with attributing them. And mentioning a single author's ethnicity who grew up in Iran, happened to have Armenian origin etc., is in fact irrelevant to this article. If you would still want to run an RfC for some reason, please don't forget to include Tagawor's version and your preferred 19th century version, so we don't have another error like in the List of monuments page. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

TagaworShah's version doesn't change much. Maybe "19th century sources such as Nersesov, as well as Azerbaijani sources from the same period such as ..." fits better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.219.167.10 (talk) 11:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think that saying “19th century sources” just for Nersesov is necessary, it’s also implies that there are other non-Azerbaijani 19th century sources that agree with him which I haven’t seen, yet if any arise maybe we can consider something along these lines. TagaworShah (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The vast majority of Russian sources from the 19th century say the same thing as Mirza Jamal or Mirza Adigozal. But let's do an RFC and ask the community for help. Grandmaster 19:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

RFC on Nersesov and others

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.

There is no consensus on the best way to describe the sources. The community was split between option 1 and 3. Supporters of 1 believed that the additional descriptions were unnecessary details. Supporters of 3 believed that disclosing the ethnicity of the sources would be beneficial in the interest of neutrally covering the topic. However, neither side was able to convince the other and so no consensus was reached in this discussion. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Which of the following is the best way to present the chroniclers who wrote about the foundation of the town? Grandmaster 19:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 - 19th-century sources such as Mirza Jamal Javanshir Qarabaghi, Mirza Adigozal bey, Abbasgulu Bakikhanov, and Mirza Yusuf Nersesov, attest to the foundation of the town in 1750–1752 (...)
• Option 2 - Azerbaijani sources, including Mirza Jamal Javanshir Qarabaghi, Mirza Adigozal bey and Abbasgulu Bakikhanov, and Armenian author Mirza Yusuf Nersesov, attest to the foundation of the town in 1750–1752 (...)
• Option 3 - Azerbaijani sources, including Mirza Jamal Javanshir Qarabaghi, Mirza Adigozal bey and, Abbasgulu Bakikhanov, as well as Mirza Yusuf Nersesov, attest to the foundation of the town in 1750–1752 (...)

As in previous RFC on this page, please enter Option 1, Option 2 or Option 3, followed by a brief statement, in the Survey. Please do not reply to other users in the Survey. Back-and-forth discussion may be conducted in the Threaded Discussion section. Grandmaster 10:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Option 1. I see no reason to go into such details about every author, since this article is about a town, and not those people. More detailed information about them could be found by clicking a link to go to the relevant article about each person. But if we are to mention details about them, I would go for Option 2, since all the sources say that Nersesov was Armenian, and for us to say otherwise would be a WP:OR. Mentioning ethnicity of all other authors and leaving it out for Nersesov makes no sense, as all sources need to be treated the same way, and the ethnicity of Nersesov is well known and is not questioned by any reliable source. But in general, I see no reason for those extra details in this particular situation. Grandmaster 19:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• Option 3 – Better attributed version. 3 out of 4 sources are in fact Azerbaijani, and it should be noted as such. Only Mirza Yusuf Nersesov is an assimilated Iranian author who happened to have Armenian origin, none of his details are relevant to the article as was also noted by multiple editors from above discussion. No "WP:OR" is breached by any of these versions btw. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 I agree with Grandmaster - mentioning the authors is good, I don't see the need to expand on where they are from. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 per ZaniGiovanni rationale. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 The mention of ethnicity may be relevant when the sources about a given event are in conflict, to emphasize the origin of conflicting accounts. Here various sources agree on the event in question, so we can write succinctly. Brandmeister^talk 17:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 also per ZaniGiovanni arguement.--217.149.166.11 (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC) Blocked IP. Brandmeister^talk 10:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 Attributing and disclosing any possible ethnic conflict interest of authors is important in this controversial topic. And it’s hard to call an assimilated Iranian as Nersesov “an Armenian”, that would introduce false balance, as if “both Azeri and Armenian authors attest….”, which is apparently not the case. --Armatura (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 I agree with Grandmaster on this one. His rationale fits the best at the moment.--Nicat49 (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 - I see no need to go in all that biographical detail about people who are only mentioned in passing as sources in the article. The current dispute over the city shouldn't be present in every single aspect of its description. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 Per Armatura and ZaniGiovanni, proper in-text attribution is required to make sure that readers are aware that viewpoint is not standard throughout 19th century sources such as would be the case in number one, it represents the dominant viewpoints of specifically Azerbaijani historians during that time frame and the 3 Azerbaijani historians should be attributed as such. Nersesov, besides being ethnically Armenian, does not represent the dominant viewpoints in Armenian literature of that time and was not even an Armenian national so it wouldn’t make sense to attribute his words as Armenian, just as his own words. TagaworShah (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• Not option 3 because it is unclearly phrased. It raises the question: is Nersesov also ("as well as") Azerbaijani or not? Between option 1 and 2, because there is no disagreement between these sources related to ethnicity, mentioning ethnicity is not that important, so option 1 is slightly preferable over option 2. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

‘’’Option 3’’’ Attributing and disclosing any possible ethnic conflict interest is important in this controversial topic. And it’s hard to call an assimilated Iranian as Nersesov “an Armenian”, that would introduce false balance, as if “both Azeri and Armenian authors attest….”, which is apparently not the case. --Armatura (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Nersesov was not an assimilated Iranian. According to all sources, he was an Armenian. Saying otherwise would be a WP:OR, plus when he wrote his chronicle, he was a Russian citizen for decades. He returned to Karabakh in 1828, and wrote his book in 1855. If you have a source for him being an "assimilated Iranian", please share it with us. Otherwise, according to WP:VER, we must go with what the sources say about him, i.e. that he was an Armenian. Grandmaster 15:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Grandmaster you shouldn’t repeat same talking points which aren’t relevant to the suggested options. None of the suggested versions breach “OR”, and we should only discuss them. A point for everyone to consider. Hypothetical suggestions aren’t relevant to this RfC, please focus on options presented which again, don’t breach WP:OR. And everyone interested, please consider checking the discussion above this RfC for more details. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Armatura's argument was "it’s hard to call an assimilated Iranian as Nersesov “an Armenian”", which is an OR. As I wrote above, no source calls him an "assimilated Iranian". Grandmaster 16:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Sure. I’m saying that his “origin or country he grew up in” discussion isn’t pertaining to this RfC. Everyone should discuss the Options presented instead, if there is anything to discuss that wasn’t discussed in the above thread. Other than that, the community will decide which of the presented versions suits best. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Option 1 I agree with Grandmaster on this one. His rationale fits the best at the moment. - Care to elaborate, maybe? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Option 1 - I see no need to go in all that biographical detail about people who are only mentioned in passing as sources in the article. The current dispute over the city shouldn't be present in every single aspect of its description. - Attributing relevant majority sources as "Armenian/American/Russian/Azerbaijani" or any other isn't much "detail" or goes deep into "biographies", it's literally a single word and how we usually attribute stuff. Saying "Azerbaijani sources" is more than suitable and it's not like Nersesov, whose origin I would agree isn't relevant to the article as he's a single source out of 4 sources, and the other 3 majority sources are in fact Azerbaijani. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:30, 29 December 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.