Talk:Shusha/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

"De jure"

I would think that coats of arms were not decided by national authorities, and rather chosen by each state or city. In this case, the city of Shusha - contrary to the desires of Baku - has chosen a new coat of arms. I'm not sure how NPOV it is to say it has two coats of arms - if the locals have changed the coat of arms, then the new one is de jure. You have to show evidence that there is a significant government-in-exile that retains the original. It's like if the U.S. state of Virginia changed its flag while it had seceded from the union during the American Civil War - we wouldn't include both flags, because flags are not dictated by Washington, they are chosen by each state; if there were a significant government-in-exile of Virginia that maintained the old flag, then we would mention that. I would think the same applies to coats of arms. So the question here is - is there a significant government-in-exile of Shusha? --Golbez (talk) 22:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thats what I'm asking for. I want to make sure the historic coat of arms wasn't added just because the de-facto one is there. There is no indications whatsoever that de-jure government exist or uses any coat of arms. Here is a source for the de-facto[1]--VartanM (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no de-jure Azerbaijani government in Shushi, and never will be. The coat of arms is misleading and merely represents the fantasies of those in Azerbaijan fooled by their government's propaganda. Hence, it has no place in the infobox.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back, Tigran. Could we please tone down the nationalist rhetoric on talk pages and edit summaries, everyone? --Golbez (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

i agree there is no such thing as de-jure Azerbaijani government in Shushi or its coat of arms; it is factually untrue. Hnarakert (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Golbez. I am sure we all miss the relatively civilized environment you were able to maintain on the Nagorno-Karabakh page a year ago. Unfortunately, as long as the Azerbaijani editors continue their disruptive rhetoric about "separatists," the environment is likely to remain contaminated. And again, I am in no way assuming bad faith on their part. I am sure they sincerely believe they are improving the quality of Wikipedia articles while disrupting them.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on GM, you know where I took those figures from, if you really don't, then you should read other contributors’ work; those records were provided and are official Russian figures. Azeris had a higher birth rate? Do you have any source for this? According to the King Crane commission, Armenians had a higher birth rate in the Eastern Ottoman Empire than the Muslim population. There is no rational reason as to why Azeris would have that much of a higher birth rate than the Kurds, both were nomads with similar social structures. Also, I'm afraid the official data and established history is more credible than what one or two obscure scholars say. The official Russian records of 1897 recorded in the 8 provinces 1,127,212 Armenians. The official records of Armenian immigration are more easily found than any other group in the region. The numbers just do not add up. For comparison purposes, from 1834 to 1914, 65,950 Armenians left the Ottoman Empire for the United States of America; in the 1897 statistics there was 72,967 Armenians in Kars; Kars was previously in the Ottoman Empire, so immigration there from elsewhere is excluded. Those are recorded in official documents.

Actually, the massive Armenian immigration is a known myth not supported by any archival material, not even Russian. Justin McCarthy who is known for his denial of the Armenian Genocide and hired by the Turkish Grand Assembly admits in his paper published by the Turkish government the following:

Except for major migrations resulting from wars, there is very little evidence on migration of Armenians from the Ottoman Empire to Russia. It is known that this migration existed, but no registration figures have been found. Most likely the Armenian migrants were never counted. This has not kept some from making fanciful estimations: Supposedly a yearly average of 10,000 Armenians went to Russia from 1845 to 1870, 15,000 a year from 1770 to 1900, and a total of 150,000 from 1900 to 1914.” Ignoring the fact that such a massive migration would have been mentioned in Ottoman documents and European consular reports, which it is not, statistical analysis proves it to have been impossible [2].

This is what he says in the next paragraph:

In order to analyze various statements on migration to Russia, a simple computer program projected the Armenian population of the Russian Southern Caucasus from the figures in the 1897 census back to 1826 (immediately before the Russians conquered the Erivan Province-'Russian Armenia'). The program assumed various rates of natural increase (i.e., without major migration). When the figures for migration estimated in this article (1828-29 War: 50,000; Crimean War: 50,000; 1877-78 War: 25,000; and yearly migration of 1,000 in other years), the resulting population for 1826 is reasonable-between 395,000 Armenians (.01 yearly growth rate) to 613,000 Armenians (0.005 growth rate) in the Southern Caucasus. The actual figures lay somewhere in between these two extremes. If the fanciful estimations of migration as given above are used in the program, there would have been between 26,000 (.01 rate) and 144,000 (0.005 rate) Armenians in the entire Southern Caucasus in 1826. These figures are absurdly small, far below any estimates, including those of Armenian scholars.

Now observe what he says next: The 1897 Russian census supports these conclusions: The census registered 10,187 of the inhabitants of the Erivan Province, 38,664 of the Kars Province, and 101,066 in the entire Southern Caucasus as born in the Ottoman Empire. Figures for Armenians alone are not available, and these figures include many non-Armenians.

Should I continue for the last paragraph about the issue? Kars like I said was part of the Ottoman Empire, so the Russians taking possession of it cannot be called Armenian resettlement. If anything Bournoutian’s provided data is even supported by a professional revisionist such as McCarthy who not so long ago was condemning Armenia for the Armenian-Azerbaijani war.

Now on Britannica, it covers Karabakh not NK, there was no more Armenian resettlement there than in Azerbaijan as supported by the official Russian records which also record as much, if not more, Tartar resettlement. Shushi’s Muslim majority was the exception. Now what do you say we also cover Turkic tribes’ resettlement when prior to that, in various regions the population was Armenian. Shall we?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I just cited a few sources above, which provide very detailed info about immigration of the Armenian population to Caucasus. Note that British encyclopedia of 1833 specifically mentions "the emigration to Persia of many Mohammedan families since its subjection to Russia, although many Armenians were induced by the Russian government, after the peace of Toorkmanchay, to emigrate from Persia to Karabagh". And we have many sources about Russian sponsored Armenian immigration to South Caucasus. Griboyedov is one such source. A modern Russian scholar Vishnevsky whom I cited above is another. And Britannica also mentions Armenian immigration to Karabakh, and it means NK, because there were no Armenian villages in the lower Karabakh, while in NK immigrants founded new settlements, such as Maragashen, which was founded by the immigrants from Iranian city of Maraga. Of course there are no separate statistics for NK within the Russian empire, because the term NK did not exist before the Soviet times. But since Armenian population was lived only in the mountainous part of the region, it is obvious that the immigrants settled there, and not in lowlands. Grandmaster (talk) 05:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You know, I admire the clever editing. Reverting the article and saying that your adding a section and then making an innocent little edit with 0 characters changed ... As if it never happened. Bravo, I applaud your courage and wittiness. Now to be more serious. I reverted your revert and additions for number of reasons. First as I mentioned before, you reverted the article without indicating that you reverted the article, thats not really "professional" if you will. Second you added sources that are unverifiable, I mean, I would AGF and trust you, but not after the magic trick you tried to present. Please present quotes from your sources. Regards --VartanM (talk) 09:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you are not talking to me, but recent revert was perfectly justified, as it removed POV edits by new users and deletion of sourced info. Grandmaster (talk) 11:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, your suggestion is an unsubstantiated POV. 1. Armenians did live in lowland Karabakh. the last villages were removed in 1988. 2. Your sources do not demonstrate that Armenians migrated to the highlands of Karabakh or Shushi specifically. What you have a hypothesis that does not make any sense to me. Armenian sources of the 18th century show that at that time the population of Karabakh was 200,000 people. This number is supported by German and papal missionaries. Bassenius (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Which villages were they? Please provide info about their location, population, etc. 2. My sources specifically mention immigration of Armenian people to Karabakh, so it is not a hypothesis, but a verifiable info. Persistent deletion of it is a violation of Wikipedia rules. Grandmaster (talk) 09:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't have to provide names of villages, because he isn't introducing a statement in the article that Armenians immigrated to those villages. Since you are introducing a statement that Armenians immigrated to Shusha or NK, it is your job as an editor to provide sources specifically mentioning Shusha or NK. Saying "Britannica says Karabakh, so it must be Nagorno Karabakh" violates WP:NOR and WP:SYN.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 10:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's another source for you:

During the turmoil of World War I, Armenia and Azerbaijan briefly achieved independence. However, the complex demography of Transcaucasia made it impossible to create ethnically homogeneous states, and the focus of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict shifted from Baku to the area known as Nagorno-Karabakh where, at the time, Armenians formed the great majority (over 90%) of the population, although many of them had come to this area in the nineteenth century as immigrants from Turkey and Iran. This mountainous "island" of Armenians in an Azerbaijani "sea" was separated from the rest of eastern Armenia, and it was fiercely contested throughout the short period of independence of the Caucasian states.

Niall M. Fraser; Keith W. Hipel; John Jaworsky; Ralph Zuljan. A Conflict Analysis of the Armenian-Azerbaijani Dispute. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 34, No. 4. (Dec., 1990), pp. 652-677.

Grandmaster (talk) 12:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Minus my recent conflict with E104421 I tried to stay away from this article, but what can I do? Willingly or not, I am now a full member to this party. Grandmaster where are this many sources you speak about? The claim of massive immigration wasn't even Russian, it was Armenian. The Armenians were making such claims to convince that Eastern Anatolia was their original homeland, because of territorial claims back in those years. There was no massive Armenian immigration. Armenians were well established elsewhere, and sedentary people need initiatives, unlike the Tartars who would just move.

For a nomadic tribes there are no boundaries or frontiers, season after season they change their places, this is the reason why they didn't build cities in the mountainous regions or have some major presence in the mountanous plains. Shushi of course was an exception, and it was build in the middle of an Armenian villages. Year by year the Muslims were populating various regions and there numbers were also growing.

The only way to keep the same proportions, is that the immigrants proportion of Armenians vs Tartars is the same as the population of that region. This is what happened in NK, it was over 90% Armenian before the Russians took it, it remained over 90% in 1921. The only time there was relative changes was after NK was made part of Azerbaijan.

Besides the region of Shushi was mostly Armenian up until to 1235. Thats when the Mongols came along and burned the entire region to the ashes. the the population shift only started happening after the 1235 when the Tartars started to settle there. I don't see why those informations should not go there.

Some of the history which should be included, is the way Shoushi was build. By force by the Khan:In the reign of Nadir Shah, somewhat more than eighty years ago, the Armenian chiefs, who had gained a sort of independence in its mountainous interior, were forced, by their own dissensions, and the power of that conqueror, to receive a moslem khan for their governor. He build the town of Shoosha, and called it Penah-ahad, or city of Penagm which was his own name. [3]. Shushi was indeed build after that the Melik Nazer ceded a small region on Karkar to Pana. [4]

Beside, Ebrahim Khan ravages and destruction was what forced Armenians to vacate [5] read also the following chapters and see for yourself how far this spread at the end of the 18th century and how it affected the Armenian population in the entire region.

The fact is that it was the Tartars who settled in NK not the other way around, they forced Melik Nazer to cede land and then build a Muslim town in the middle of an Armenian populated region. You are assuming that Armenians have settled in the highlands because there was many Armenian villages, but this doesn't make sense. What will be the interest of the Russians to bring Armenians and populate them in a region where the Armenians were already the majority, it is logical that they'd prefer to settle them in the lowlands, with the Muslims were. After all, were you not claiming that they did it to change the statistics.

Also, it is obvious that Shushi's Muslim majority could not survive, it was a forcibly build town, an enclave surrounded by Armenians. Armenians always had a tendency to leave for cities, in dense area's, where do you think surrounding Armenians in villages would have left for? But still in those years Tartars were nomads, how natural was for them to remain in that city? Over the years an equilibrium was achieved by a gradual decline of the Muslim population in the rise of the Armenians.

And Grandmaster, Maragashen? You mean the myth of Armenian resettlement, there is only one site with that information on the Internet, it comes from a document called The Forgotten Genocide [6], I didn't know you liked to read conspiracy theories? The monument they build was similar to the one build in Spitak in 1978. Both representing the same thing, the 150 anniversary of the fusion between Eastern Armenia and the Russian Empire. Also, your uses of double standard is going out of proportion. It is OK for the Khan to forcefully build a Muslim town in the middle of an Armenian bastion, but it isn't OK to build an Armenian village in the middle of that same Armenian bastion.

You need to give up this myth of Armenian massive resettlement, Armenians have been a majority in what is now NK since centuries, and unlike the rest it resisted Shah Abas's resettlement of the population. Also, don't you think it sounds funny when you speak of Armenian resettlement when the entire region of Armenian Highland the population was overwhelmingly a majority before the Turkic tribes settled there. You aren't answering Marshall's questions, why is it that it should not be mentioned? Also, why is it that nothing is said about the fact that the reason why the Russians wanted to bring Armenians in the first place was to replace the Armenians who left for Georgia to run away from the brutal policies of Ebrahim Khan, who savaged and burned villages after villages. VartanM (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

So, VartanM, how do you feel about baboons? Do you find them quite disgusting creatures as well?--TigranTheGreat (talk) 03:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You are forgetting to mention a few facts. 4 out of 5 Armenian meliks were not native to Karabakh, they moved there in various times from various parts of Southern Caucasus. The only natives to Karabakh were meliks of Khachen, descendants of aboriginal population of Karabakh, i.e. Caucasian Albanians. So both Armenians and Azerbaijanis were migrants to the region, Armenians assimilated the Christian Albanian population of the highlands, Azeris assimilated Muslim population of the lowlands. Saying that Turkic people did not live in the cities is also wrong, please explain who were the population of the largest cities of the Caucasus, such as Ganja, Shemakha, Baku, Erivan, etc? And the only city in NK, Shusha, was built by the people you call nomads, while there were no Armenian cities in the area. So yes, migration of Armenian population to the region is verifiable info, supported by many sources. The last one that I cited specifically mentions NK, and not Karabakh in general. As for Maragashen, it was named after the city of Maraga in Persia, where the population came from. I hope you are not going to deny that. Grandmaster (talk) 09:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stick to the topic. What is the relevancy of from where the Meliks came from? And your descendenc theories are outdated. The Meliks of Khachen were from the Jalalian branch, which is recognized even by Cornell to be an Armenian.

If you think that you are gonna be able to place the Armenians and Azerbaijani's as equally migrants, you won't be successful, we know that aborigines from America didn't just appear there on the American continent, they moved there, according to your logic we can just claim that Native-Americans and Europeans are both migrants and there is no difference between them. What matters is the association of the place historically with the people before the other group arrived. Armenians in what is now NK have monasteries and churches build there even before the Azerbaijani identity existed, predating that identity to several centuries. And I don't know of what assimilation you are talking about, as genetic studies don't support your affirmation. Your thesis would have been true had the Karabakh Armenians shown a shift on some of the gens compared to the Armenians from Armenia and the Diaspora, but this is not the case. The current Azerbaijani's depending of their location are mostly or Iranian who in the past have been assimilated by Turkic speaking people or Armenian. The Aghvans by their population when the Turkic tribes came were inconsiderable compared with the Armenian population. When the Turkic speaking people invaded the region in the thirteenth century, the region was already culturally Armenian, the South was Persian and there was still some Arabic influence since the Arabs rule.

Coming to the cities, what you say makes no sense at all, invaded people do not sustain cities they vacate them and build small bastillons(it was a new strategy by Armenians). Also, none of the cities you name were build by nomads, Ganja was build by Arabs, the Armenians sustained the city for a considerable time before Turkic tribes invaded the place. Yerevan was an Armenian city for 2000 years (build on the ashes of Erebuni) before Shah Abbas deported its population. The place was still vacated and the region used for storage by the Ottomans before nomads gradually repopulated it. Shemakha was originally build by Arabs and Persians, while it is true that under Shirvan Khanate a town emerged, but just like Shushi, nomadic towns were built only to serve as the rulers residency. If the ruler died and was not replaced or Khanate abolished, it gradually changed. Neither was Baku build by the nomads, Baku we know was build by the Persians, the population moved there after Shemakha was devastated by an earthquake. Because of constant Turkic invasion in the whole region, the languages and dialects changed. Even in Karabakh the Tartar population was semi-nomadic. They were only leaving for the highlands for 3 months in summer.

Returning to the migration, you are ignoring any prior discussion as if all this discussion never happened. Actually, I wonder why I am arguing when you answer as if nothing was said. When searching for Maragashen [7] this is what we find], you didn't even bother to change the errors when you copied it from The Forgotten Genocide a racist piece. Migration in the Armenian case only decreased their numbers in those regions, migration for the nomads overal only increased their numbers. This is an undisputed fact that no serious historian would deny. Yet you guys throw that in as many articles as you can. When in reality we can use reliable source in a dozen of articles about the vacating of Armenians and the migration of Turkic tribes on those regions. And again I repeat, the monument in Maragha was in the commemoration of the 150th anniversary of the fusion between Russia and Eastern Armenia.VartanM (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Vartan, that's wrong interpretation of history.

The Aghvans by their population when the Turkic tribes came were inconsiderable compared with the Armenian population.

Who says? I already quoted contemporary Muslim sources of the 10th century, that's a few decades before the migration of the Oguz Turks in the 11th century. They all say that Arran was populated by Albanians. And when Turkic Oguz tribes moved into the region, the Albanian population of such cities as Barda, Ganja or Beylagan did not disappear, they mixed and assimilated with Turkic people. So lowland and highland Karabakh had Albanian population, but while people of lowlands were mostly Muslim, people of highland were mostly Christian. Only a part of Turkic population of Transcaucasia was nomadic, and not the bigger part. But whatever, we can return to this later. Speaking of population shift, the migration of Armenians to Caucasus and Karabakh is well documented, I cited more than 1 source. I will replace Shavrov with other references if it makes you happy. And I never read "Forgotten Genocide" or mentioned any monument, I just said that Maraga was named after the city in Persia, where the founders of the village came from. Grandmaster (talk) 07:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeh right! First, I'm intrigued to see a source where it say that Turkic tribes significantly populated the place before the 13th century. It is a fact that before the 13th century there was no significant Turkic population there. Second you have to document that there was any significant number of Abanians in Ganja, this is simply not true, the city build by the Arabs perpetuated as culturally Armenian and Georgian. In October 1723 when the Ottoman tried to capture it, it was stopped by a joint Armenian, Georgian and Dagestani's [8]. The only significant Nomadic penetration in Ganja for a long time was Kurdish and perhaps maybe Circassian.

Also, Arabic sources don't mean anything, Armenians from the East starting from Artsakh have a different and particular dialect, one of which reason why Armenian was classified as a Persian dialect for a very long time. Such dialects include Machkalashen language. Not only is this true, but some even have claimed that Artsakh Armenian dialect is the only surviving example of the Thraco-Phrygian language(which is believed to be the origin of the Armenian language). (Nations Without States: A Historical Dictionary of Contemporary National Movements, by James Monahan p. 38). Mark Malkasian in his work admits that a form of the local Artsakh dialects is virtually unintelligible to other Armenians. Even Cornell writes: some evidence that the area was inhabited by Armenians in the eight century, as a 'peripheric dialect' of Armenian called Artsakhian is mentioned in contemporary dialect.' Those Armenians have long considered themselves as Avghan, two century ago, their patriarchate was still claiming to be the one of the Aghvans. So you could provide countless references about an Aghvan language in Arabic sources, but it's very unlikely to be true, since a significant part of the Armenian population could (and still) barely understand Artsakh dialects, but considered them to be Armenian.

Also your claim that only a part of Turkic population was nomadic doesn't make any sense. This view is not supported by any published material, Turkic culture became sedentary only when the ruling elite spoke Turkic dialects and the sedentary Persian population was assimilated. This was in Azerbaijan, South of Arax, in the North further from Persian influence. In fact only the cities that were formed by the rulers had a sedentary Turkic population. Even in the beginning of the last century the Tartar population in Karabakh was semi-nomadic and had to move in the highlands in the Summer.

Also, you claim that both lowland and highland Karabakhs had Albanian population doesn't make sense, neither the unsubstantiated theory that Azeris are assimilated Albanians. Like I said, when there was significant Turkic influence on the region, it was to replace the Armenians. Your theory that Artsakh was Albanian as in different than Armenian when the Turkic hordes arrived has still to be supported. Also, you are so fast to assume that Muslim means non-Armenian, after the Arabs rule a significant number of Armenians became Muslim, in fact some of them moved North, others on the Black Sea and intermarried with the Hemsheni Armenians, but most of them were assimilated by the Turkic population.

And funny that you still keep talking about migration, when you guys have been suppressing any references of Armenian deportation outside of that region with assumed equal treatment against others. And also when nothing is said about the fact that it was the Turkic population who has the youngest history in that region, but yet you guys seem to have such good time interjecting that Armenians settled there while the Turkic population was a majority.

You claim that you have never read Forgotten Genocide, yet you spelled the place the exact wrong way and on google it is the only link which writes it this way. This is quite similar to the incidence where you have found a link from a White extremist website, don't you think so? And for your information, we have Ararat in Armenia too, does it mean that people from Turkey settled there to form it? Maragha in Iran had a heavy Armenian heritage and the word's etymology is shard in Persian and Armenian. The monument which the Azerbaijani Academia of science distorted in 1988 was build in 1978 the same year as other monuments were build elsewhere including in Armenia for the 150th commemoration year of the fusion between Eastern Armenia and Russia.

And don't present your exclusion of Shavrov as if you are giving me anything, we have established that his figures were statistically impossible, that he was a xenophobe, writing about how immigrants were stealing Russians job. If you really want to speak of Armenian resettlement, I think it will be reasonable to speak of the Turkic resettlement too, of a much, much larger scale in a much longer period of time. VartanM (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

VartanM, you make plenty of unsubstantiated statements, which are nothing but OR. You say that Arranian language mentioned by Arab sources is in fact some dialect of Armenian. Do you have sources to support you claim that Arab chronicles actually referred to the Armenian dialect? If not, what’s the point in discussing it? Then you say:

Also, you claim that both lowland and highland Karabakhs had Albanian population doesn't make sense, neither the unsubstantiated theory that Azeris are assimilated Albanians.

That’s not my theory, it is a scientifically accepted fact:

The Caucasus region has long been the scene of very serious social, religious and ethnic conflicts. Back in the Middle Ages, before the Turkish people migrated here from central Asia, eastern Transcaucasia was known as Caucasian Albania. No relation to the Balkan Albanians, these were a Christianized people quite close to the Armenians. Once the Seljuk Turks began arriving in the 11th century, the Albanians in the mountainous area – Karabagh up to historic Armenia – remained largely Christian and eventually merged with the Armenians. The Albanians in the eastern plain leading down to the Caspian Sea mixed with the Turkish population and eventually became Muslims.

Ronald G. Suny: What Happened in Soviet Armenia? Middle East Report, No. 153, Islam and the State. (Jul. - Aug., 1988), pp. 37-40.

Then you say:

Second you have to document that there was any significant number of Abanians in Ganja, this is simply not true, the city build by the Arabs perpetuated as culturally Armenian and Georgian.

How come that it was culturally Armenian when even Armenian sources of the 17th century mention that it was an Albanian city and had Albanian population. See this Armenian primary source, this is a quote from Chronicles by Zachariah Kanakertsi, 17th century Armenian historian:

Некий человек из племени алван, которых ныне зовут удинами, из алванского города Гандзака, отправился в Святую обитель Гандзасара, где находится престол алванского католикоса, и стал учеником католикоса Ованнеса. [9]

Закарий Канакерци. Хроника.

Some man from the tribe of alvans, who are now called udis, from the alvanian town of Gandzak, went to the holy monastery of Gandzasar, where the residence of alvanian catholicos is located, and became a disciple of Catholicos Ovannes.

As for Shavrov, we have not established that his figures are impossible, on the contrary, they appear to be understated. The modern Russian scholar Vishnevsky provides same or even higher figures. Indeed, if the Armenian population of Transcaucausia was slightly over 100,000, how could it reach 1,7 million for the reasons other than migration? Grandmaster (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Just because Armenians imigrated to Caucasus, doesn't mean they settled in Shushi. Many actually went to Baku, turning it into a prosperous and virtually Armenian city. --TigranTheGreat (talk) 11:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, as much as I respect you, I'm sorry to say this, but your answer has no usable substance. You sound as if you are in the defensive and bring more unsubstantiated claims. scientifically accepted fact, are you serious? Do you even known what a scientifically accepted fact is? It doesn't even apply to history, this kind of wording is applied to things like the three thermodynamic laws. I'm afraid that by quoting one or two stuff won't establish factuality.

Sunny recycles views of political activists with historically unsubstantiated claims. When the Turkic tribes significantly populated the place Udis were already a minority for two hundred years. Sunny's claims are not only disproven by genetic research, but also contradictory, because in his equation two hundred years are missing. First, the new Albania, then the Arabic rule and the conversion of the population. After 11th century historic Aghvank is mentioned, but not much of a distinct population. Beside, any remaining Aghvans in that region did not live in the lowlands, but in the Caucasus Mountains, during the period the lowlands of that region were not suitable for sedentary life and did not provide the natural fortification the highlands provided. This claim of the lowland is a myth. Here for example another scholar speak of the mountains but not the lowlands. [10]

The lowlands were populated by Kurds, Dagestani's, Circassians, Persians, Armenians but mostly not Albanians. The lowland was a melting pot and when Turkic tribes arrived they mostly Turkified the population which was already significantly Islamized, in the lowlands.

And Grandmaster, you claim that even Armenian sources of the 17th century claim Gandzak was an Albanian city. The source you quote is open to interpretation, like I said, not so long ago the Artsakh Catholicate was still claimed to be the one of the Albanians while the language and culture recorded was Armenian. And sorry to say this, but this does not match with archival materials from the Russians, Ottomans etc., where the records word by word say that the the defense of Ganja was done by the Armenians, Georgians and Dagestanis and no mention of Albanians.

Now, your last paragraph, did you even read my reply? Vishnevsky is throwing numbers not substantiated by records, first he uses figures of the Armenian statistics (1,7 million) not the official Russian census which exposes an intention from his part, second as McCarthy who can hardly be considered as pro-Armenian, admits that those figures are statistically impossible. We are not even debating about covering history but rather a mathematical impossibility. The only official Russian records found on the subject were provided by Bounatian. The Ottoman records don't speak of any significant movement of Armenian population, and neither any other archive. The numbers you speak of is higher than the Circassian immigration from the Russian Empire to the Ottoman Empire in 1820's. And there are plenty of records about that, both in Russian and Ottoman records. And Circassians were nomadic, and their presence was not as well recorded than the Armenians. If there are such records for Circassians, where are those of the Armenians? VartanM (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Just because Armenian, Georgian and Dagestani troops marched to Ganja does not make it either of those. That is a very strange argument. Russian troops under the king Oleg marched to Constantinople, does it make it a Russian city? The Armenian chronicle is not open to any other interpretation, it clearly cays that Albanians were known at the times of chronicler as Udis, and Ganja was an Albanian city. In any case, it was an Islamic city from the very beginning. You may like or dislike Suny, but he only supports what other scholars say. See Iranica, And Armenian migration to Karabakh is supported by many sources, including encyclopedias, but you keep on denying verifiable facts. Britannica and Penny cyclopedia both say that Armenians migrated to Karabakh, and I quoted another source saying that many Armenians moved to NK in the 19th century. Why did you remove those sources? And do you have official Russian statistics from any source other than McCarthy? You would not accept him as a source in any Armenian related article, so I don’t know why you refer to him here. Vishnevsky is an expert in demographics, and he knows what he is talking about. Grandmaster (talk) 11:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, your known as and scientifically proven are starting to become disruptive. I have provided various sources which shows that Albanian and neither Albanian language necessarily mean not Armenian. Gandzak was not known as an Albanian city, and your comparison doesn't make sense, because it is not accurate, King Oleg attacked Constantinople which was defended by the Greeks. The Armenians did not move to defend Ganjak, they defended Ganjak from the inside. Like previously stated, Artsakh religious center was claimed by the Armenians themselves to be Albanian, it doesn't mean it wasn't Armenian. Here for example, we see the population was Armenian, [11], it doesn't mention other groups.

Also, you have succeeded in the above post to be very incivil and haven't assumed good faith, this is clearly against the Arbcom ruling, please assume good faith. I am not denying verifiable facts, and I also already told you that we should stick with source and stop using words such as facts.

First of, you have done nothing of the such as you claim in your reply, the various encyclopedia's you are speaking of say nothing about NK. Second, the official records show as much if not more increase of the Tartar population in that region. You have ignored this and continued as if nothing was said. And you claim if I have any other sources than McCarthy? We are talking about the official Russian Census, Vishnevsky has used the inflated Armenian Patriarchate figures to substantiate his claim, dismissing the official Russian Census. And what makes you believe that I will remove McCarthy as source in any Armenian related articles? He is included in two genocide related articles, one of which even has a section about him, without any qualifiers to dismiss him. Stop making baseless accusations against me. And you are sounding funny when you ask me to provide other sources to document a non-existence. It is up to you to document the existence, we do not document the non-happening of something. But up to now, official Russian data have been provided which show the statistical impossibility of such a claim. No matter how many scholars claim 1+1=5, such a claim has no place here. VartanM (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I’m still waiting for explanation why sourced info was removed. I added 3 sources that said that Armenian s were resettled to Karabakh in the 19th century. What’s up with removal of those sources? You asked for those sources, I provided them. Keep them in the article. You don’t know which sources Vishnevsky used, his article is a verifiable info from a scholarly source and should also remain. This is not a place for OR, and you cannot dismiss a source just because you believe that what it says is impossible. Grandmaster (talk) 07:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, you are intelligent enough to know why they were removed and I have already explained why. Because K does not equate to NK, and that you are misusing those sources knowing that it will mislead readers into believing something which is not necessarily implied by the sources used. And like I have stated, if you are gonna discuss Armenian resettlement it is logical to also discuss Turkic resettlement, which extended in the periods of centuries and of much much larger scale. You see, I should even not provide this second reason because the first reason is enough, the way you use he source and imply is actually OR. And your claim that I don't know what sources Vishnevsky uses is false. What I am doing is an editorial judgment. 1,7 million is the Armenian Patriarchate figure, and if you check McCarthy presentation of the claim, read the initial source used, it is a replica of what Vishnevsky claims.

So you see this is far from being OR, this is an editorial judgment, the source should go because official records of population have precedence and mathematical facts have precedence over what any historians could claim. It will indeed take much more than few fooled historians to take precedence on what Russian official records, what Ottoman Official records, what European official records say. Comparing both position, your few sources become nothing more than a fringe (not even a minority) theory. Peter the Great reported an Armenian support in that region of somehow massive scale, this is HISTORY, but according to Vishnevsky those Armenians could not have been there in the first place. Like I previously stated, his claims amount to delusions. As you see, you can not make selective quotations from very limited number of scholars to reverse centuries old scholarship. VartanM (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

VartanM, your persistent deletion of sourced info gives enough grounds for another arbcom case, as I don’t see any other way to stop disruption on this and other articles. You keep on saying that Karabakh is not the same as Nagorno-Karabakh, while I quoted you a source which mentions Nagorno-Karabakh.

During the turmoil of World War I, Armenia and Azerbaijan briefly achieved independence. However, the complex demography of Transcaucasia made it impossible to create ethnically homogeneous states, and the focus of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict shifted from Baku to the area known as Nagorno-Karabakh where, at the time, Armenians formed the great majority (over 90%) of the population, although many of them had come to this area in the nineteenth century as immigrants from Turkey and Iran. This mountainous "island" of Armenians in an Azerbaijani "sea" was separated from the rest of eastern Armenia, and it was fiercely contested throughout the short period of independence of the Caucasian states.

Niall M. Fraser; Keith W. Hipel; John Jaworsky; Ralph Zuljan. A Conflict Analysis of the Armenian-Azerbaijani Dispute. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 34, No. 4. (Dec., 1990), pp. 652-677.

Now please explain why do you delete this source, along with penny cyclopedia and Britannica, etc? There’s no justification to deletion of sourced info from the article. You know that the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, and this info is verifiable. We cannot remove it just because you don’t like it. Please stop removal of verifiable info. Grandmaster 07:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster you are off the mark, really, Bournoutian reports that the only Armenians who settled there were those who escaped the oppression of Ebrahim Khan.

If you really want to discuss settlement, here is a much more reported one: Importantly, disunion amongst the five princes allowed the establishment of a foothold in mountainous Karabakh by a Turkic tribe around 1750. This event marked the first time that Turks were able to penetrate the eastern Armenian highlands; for the prior seven hundred years Turkic tribes had inhabited the plains of the southeastern Transcaucasus following their large-scale migration from Asia Minor. [12]

I have provided several sources which document that the mountainous region was never significantly populated by the Tartars, that they forcefully penetrated later with settlements, that the only Armenians settled on NK were those who escaped Ebrahim Khan. And that the only reason Shushi was a Muslim village (and does not represent the rest of NK) was because Panah forced Melik Naza to cede a land, from which Panah built Shusha. The quote above also settles the claim that there was any significant settlement of Tartars on the Armenian Plateau during Shah Abbas, when mountainous regions are unfit for nomadic tribes and that three months in the whole year of settlement does not amount to permanency.

Face it Grandmaster, if you want to continue on this road and speak of settlement, I have much more sources covering a much longer period of time, of the much larger settlement of Turkic tribes in the whole region. --VartanM 17:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, its better if you stop adding of unexplained disputted "sources". You represented one quotation and added many addings with different (included partisan) dubious sources. Pls stop your denial of Shusha pogrom (1920) and try to be more careful while changing of sourced and cited reliable info with your OR explanations included that Azeris were killed during that events. I asked you many times its unsourced political propagand no such facts even in one source but you're going to support it again and again! And Im waiting for a quote from Penny, etc. Andranikpasha 11:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

And how the quotation on Karabakh is related to Shusha town. I even cant find that name there! Is it really about an emigration to Shusha or its your original explanation? In that case why to not add this source to all the articles related to any town and village in Karabakh? Andranikpasha 11:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael P. Croissant is not a good source in this particular case, as he refers to Mouradian, "The Mountainous Karabagh Question," pp. 26-27, which is a source with a strong bias. Grandmaster (talk) 08:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Cultural life

I introduced a new section on cultural life. Here are the quotations:

Encyclopædia Britannica, Academic Online Edition, 2007. Azerbaijan article, Cultural life: "... The people of Azerbaijan have retained their ancient musical tradition. For example, the art of ashugs, who improvise songs to their own accompaniment on a stringed instrument called a kobuz, remains extremely popular. Mugams, vocal and instrumental compositions, are also widely known, the town of Shusha being particularly renowned for this art. ..."

Encyclopædia Britannica, Academic Online Edition, 2007. sileh rug article: "... sileh from the Caucasus may have been woven in the vicinity of Shusha. A similar eastern Anatolian type usually shows a different range of colours."

I also cited the Turkic origin of Qajars: Encyclopædia Britannica, Academic Online Edition, 2007. Qajar Dynasty article: "... In 1779, following the death of Mohammad Karim Khan Zand, the Zand dynasty ruler of southern Iran, Agha Mohammad Khan (reigned 1779–97), a leader of the Turkmen Qajar tribe, set out to reunify Iran. ..."

The new section is really informative, i hope you enjoy. Regards. E104421 (talk) 09:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The new section is ok with me, but you keep adding stuff that was removed earlier. Controversial stuff for which 3 users are being checkusered right now.

Let me go over the sources your provided

• Lets remmember that because of the war there are almost no Azeris living in Shushi
• The key words for the rug references are may have been eastern Anatolia different range of colors
• For Qajar, I don't see anywhere where it mentions Karabakh, Nagorno-Karabakh or Shusha. That information would be useful in Qajar article. This article is already long enough.

Please explain the revert. VartanM (talk) 11:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Revert of POV edits was fine for the reasons, discussed in much details above. There's no reason to add to this article claims that are disputed in the article "Shusha pogrom (1920)". Even the title of that article is being disputed, so duplicating POV claims across multiple articles is not acceptable. Grandmaster (talk) 11:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, i've already explained here, but i'll also write couple of words to this talk page. I reverted yours, since you deleted the cited references. Please, do not delete them. You can always add any previously removed, but referenced material, into the article (i do not know the article history in detail but just checked the last few versions including yours, too, of course, at the end i decided to add the new section into a more referenced one.), but do not delete the other sourced material. On the other hand, WP:AN/I is not a complaints department. Be civil and try to communicate with the other side at first, since Wikipedians define incivility roughly as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress. Regards. E104421 (talk) 14:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I shall answer your objections one by one:

• First one (Lets remmember that because of the war there are almost no Azeris living in Shushi): It does not matter, since both the article and the "Cultural life" section covers the whole history of the town.
• Second one (The key words for the rug references are may have been eastern Anatolia different range of colors) : The complete quotation from Britannica for "sileh rug" is "also called zili pileless floor covering from the southern Caucasus and parts of eastern Turkey. Formerly the term was used to refer to a type of flatweave whose name in its area of origin is vernehor verné, but it has now come to be used for a group of flatweaves, which may or may not be woven in two pieces and joined on the long axis. The design often consists of large square compartments, usually with small geometric figures diagonally arranged, bounded by stripes of smaller squares which contain lozenge figures. The design may be in weft float with portions of extra weft wrapping. Those sileh from the Caucasus may have been woven in the vicinity of Shusha. A similar eastern Anatolian type usually shows a different range of colours." Shusha is an important region for sileh rug.
• Third one (For Qajar, I don't see anywhere where it mentions Karabakh, Nagorno-Karabakh or Shusha. That information would be useful in Qajar article. This article is already long enough.): You deleted the wikification for the Turkic origin. There is nothing wrong in addition of references, since Qajar period is related with the city.

• Are these answered your questions? More questions, comments, ... ,etc. Regards. E104421 (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok let me go over your addition one by one.

• You reinserted the CoA. It was discussed above that it has no source and no clear indication if its the current one being used by the de-jure government. You reverted without saying a single word on why you think it should be there.
• You wikified the names. Thats good, thank you.
• You changed the location of the city from NK to Azerbaijan. I know you like to believe that the city is officially part of Azerbaijan, but the fact is its not. By changing it you are introducing POV.
• You added a source for the Qajar family being Turkic, but forgot to mention that the dynasty was Persian. Thats again POV.
• You readded Shavrov which was discussed above (discussion you weren't part of) and proven to be unreliable.
• You readded a unsourced POV statement
• You removed a sourced information
• You readded a POV section that was removed because it has no sources
• You readded the POV terms I fixed before.
• Again readded a section that was proven to be unreliable.
• You readded the tourist and historic sites section that was removed because its trivia and had no source since May.
• You removed a see also link that was recently added.

You see I had you did not just added a section that was informative. You coming out of nowhere and reverting to an older version and not saying a single word on why it should be reverted is an insult to all of the users here, in this talkpage, who are working hard to improve this article. This "My way or no other way" attitude of yours is unacceptable, thats why you were reported to ANI. You need to learn to read and understand the talkpage discussions and not blindly revert others work. You clearly didn't like it when I reverted you. How do you think Andranikpasha, Verjakette, Bassenius MarshallBagramian and I felt when you reverted and didn't even had the simple courtesy to explain why. Unless you start editing respectfully and in a constructive manner, expect to be reported to administrators. VartanM (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• I recommend you to read WP:Verifiability: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. What you are doing is against Wikipedia policy. You're deleting the sourced information. You're exceeding that threshold, that's why i reverted your edits. As i already stated above, i started editing from a more referenced version. Among your complaints, the one related with the see also link is ok. You're right (btw, you can always remove unsourced material, firstly placing a "fact" tag, and giving editors time to provide sources, if they do not, you can remove them), but all others seem to be artificial reasons to overshadow your removal of sourced information. The new "Cultural life" section is based on world wide recognized Encyclopedia Britannica. You're trying to play with the words. In Britannica, it's written that "sileh rug" is "also called zili pileless floor covering from the southern Caucasus and parts of eastern Turkey." You replaced Turkey with Anatolia. In addition, you removed the Britannica reference to Qajar Dynasty article. There is no reason to delete Turkey and the Britannica reference, but, i guess you're so concerned with Turkic peoples, this bothers you. WP:AN/I is not a complaints department. First, enjoy reading the basic Wikipedia policies and stop deleting the referenced material. Regards. E104421 (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the Wikipeida policies and have read them numerous times. I don't see where you're going with that, are you suggesting that its not verifiable that Shushi de-facto belongs to Nagorno-Karabakh Republic? I can provide many sources for that, if thats what you mean. Out of 11 points reaise you choose to answer only 1. The removal of the see also link is the proof that you blindly reverted the article. I was reasonable enough to allow the "Cultural life" section, I don't see why you're still complaining about that. Your additions would have been fine if you didn't mix them with a controversial revert. VartanM (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• I did not noticed that the see also parts were different but i realized that there were deleted sourced information in your version. That's why i decided to add the new "Cultural life" section into the other. All sourced materials should stay. That's fairly trivial. You are keeping your favorite ones but deleting all the others. That's the problem. You never answered why you deleted the sourced material but tried to change/defocus the topic. Regards. E104421 (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You didn't notice that the CoA and the historic section had no sources, also that Shakov is a chuvanist author and is being disputed. Again my problem isn't with your additions, but your revert, which you are still trying to disguise under addition of sources. VartanM (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI i have no problem with the CoA being in the history section. VartanM (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• I think you meant "Shavrov, N.I. (1911) New threat to the Russian affairs in the Transcaucasus: forthcoming sale of Mughan to strangers ("Novaya ugroza russkomu delu v Zakavkazye: predstoyashaya rasprodazha Mugani inorodcam") St.Petersburg". I do not know whether he is a chuvanist author or not, the work was published. Unless it's falsified, it should stay. For this reason, i re-added them again. You can add extra information on that source into the notes section. As you might remember from Sabiha Gökçen article, there is nothing wrong in requesting quotations or adding quotation as "according to x" in case of the author/material being controversial. For CoA, there is already citation needed tag, so no problem. I might be quickly/roughly reviewed the last versions, but i just concerned with the references. Regards. E104421 (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Golbez, please explain why did you delete the historical CoA and included one that has no legal grounds whatsoever, as it is made by a de-jure non-existent state? How encyclopedic is that? Also, what's up with stating that NK is a disputed territory, while it is legally part of Azerbaijan and is internationally recognized as such? Don't you think that such changes are too POV and should be based on a consensus with other editors, considering that we have discussed that many times in NK article and that one has a different wording? Grandmaster (talk) 09:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

NK has seceded from AsSSR legally, there are full legal grounds for the CoA. And which also means that legally, NK is not part of Azerbaijan. Just because the UN and US state that it's part of Azerbaijan doesn't affect its legality. There is no de-jure Azerbaijani government of Shusha--these officials are now holding other positions after being thrown out of the city. So, the historical CoA cannot be a de-jure CoA. That only leaves the current, true, legal CoA--the Armenian one.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 10:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It did not secede legally, and the legitimacy of the separatist authorities has not been accepted by anyone (even Armenia). So presenting illegal and illegitimate CoA as something it is not is not right. It is no more valid than the historical one. Grandmaster (talk) 11:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• I wonder why the Britannica references and quotations are constantly deleted. These are all informative. Please, do not remove the sourced material. They are from reliable sources and informative. I'm in favor of restoring the introduction section. Regards. E104421 (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • If you mean the ones from the intro, the first wasn't remotely needed, and the second had nothing to do with the referenced text. --Golbez (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Quotations from the deleted references: The first one is from Britannica: "also spelled Nagorno-Karabach , Azerbaijani "Dagliq Qarabag", Armenian "Artsakh" region of southwestern Azerbaijan. The name is also used to refer to an autonomous oblast (province) of the former Azerbaijan S.S.R. and to the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh, a self-declared country whose independence is not internationally recognized." is informative at the intro, the second one is also from Britannica should be moved to the "Cultural life" section "The people of Azerbaijan have retained their ancient musical tradition. For example, the art of ashugs, who improvise songs to their own accompaniment on a stringed instrument called a kobuz, remains extremely popular. Mugams, vocal and instrumental compositions, are also widely known, the town of Shusha being particularly renowned for this art." There is no reason to delete them. Regards. E104421 (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I think we have an article on N-K that removes the need for such a non-reference. You aren't referencing with that - you're adding information. I didn't touch anything from culture, I don't think. --Golbez (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason for deletion of the info that NK is legally part of Azerbaijan. That's not how its done in the NK article, and Golbez knows it. I'm restoring the original version, let's agree on a compromise first before deleting well known facts from the intro. Same goes for other deleted sources. Grandmaster (talk) 09:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• The reference is cited to clarify the encyclopedic statement of the dispute. The Encyclopedia Britannica quotation is given for this purpose. There is no need to delete the informative quotation and the cited references. Regards. E104421 (talk) 12:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Stop restoring Shavrov - no one has so far explained how his insinuations about general demographic picture of the South Caucasus are relevant to the demographics of Shusha specifically. 2. Gobez: the article does not mention the reality of NKR; either state that it is in a disputed region or if you want to mention "Azerbaijan," say that Shusha is part of NKR. Verjakette (talk) 14:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

What? I say it's in a disputed region (and if people want more information on that there's a helpful link), and Azerbaijan claims it but Armenians control it. What more do you want? --Golbez (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Period (aka Verjakette), Golbez merely reverted to his last version, the one prior to recent edits. The restoration of Shavrov's racist book was not deliberate.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 06:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Golbez, NK is legally part of Azerbaijan, and we provide a different description in the article about NK. Why do you change it here? Grandmaster (talk) 07:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Instead of making a statement, how about pointing out specifically where my edit is false or biased? It states Shusha is in the disputed region of N-K, that Azerbaijan has it as one of its primary divisions but presently has no control. What part of this is false or biased? --Golbez (talk) 09:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, why do you persistently delete the historical coat of arms, which is still in use in Azerbaijan, and leave illegitimate coa? Can you please explain? Grandmaster (talk) 08:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

We discussed this above; if it's the historical CoA, put it in the history section. There is no evidence that the national government controls what coat of arms a city uses. You may not be happy that Armenians are in control of Shusha, but they are, and changing the coat of arms is as much in their ability as naming a mayor - which we have mention in the infobox as well. As stated above, unless you can prove that a significant government-in-exile of Shusha maintains the old coat of arms (or has another mayor named, for that matter), it does not belong anywhere outside of the History section. --Golbez (talk) 09:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

First, old coas are still in use in Azerbaijan, see coa of Baku, for example. Second, there's no such state as "NKR", therefore their symbols are not legitimate. Neither US, nor EU, OSCE or UNO recognize such a state. The only internationally recognized authority there is Azerbaijani government. Therefore you cannot include separatist coa as an official symbol, as it has no legal grounds and no recognition. Grandmaster (talk) 10:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The NKR didn't choose this symbol; the present government of Shusha did, didn't it? The same one that chose the mayor? And make sure you are choosing the right terms - are you saying the only municipal government in Shusha is controlled from Baku? Or isn't it possible an Armenian municipal government exists, regardless of the greater geopolitical context? If they can choose their own mayor - regardless of the greater context - they can choose their own coat of arms. Instead of, again, passionately arguing against Nagorno-Karabakh in general, how about focusing on the municipality here? Unless there is a significant municipal government-in-exile of Shushua maintaining another mayor and coat of arms, there is only one mayor and here is only one coat of arms, chosen by the local population, which at present is Armenian. --Golbez (talk) 10:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no legitimate municipality there, may I remind you that any elections in NK are considered illegitimate by the international community? How could it be legitimate if it does not represent Azerbaijanis, who constituted more than 90% of population of the city and were expelled from their homes? So illegal symbol of illegal municipality has no place in the article, let alone replace the historical one. Even if you include such a symbol, it should be in the body of the article and explain who it belongs to. Grandmaster (talk) 11:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Even local elections, carried out by the local electorate? I'm going to need a source saying local elections are illegitimate. As for the fate of the Azeris, it's very unfortunate, but that doesn't change the fact that, unless there is a government-in-exile, the old coat of arms is historical, not present. If we include the mayor in the infobox, we should include the coat of arms - both or none. And it would make no sense to say the city has no mayor, wouldn't it? So I guess my question to you is - who is the mayor of Shusha? --Golbez (talk) 11:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's the source for you: [13] If we were covering Kuwait occupied by Suddam, would we present the authorities appointed by him as the legal ones? It does not matter that separatist forces appointed a mayor in the occupied territories, it still is not a legitimate authority there. Grandmaster (talk) 12:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

They regret the elections, I see nothing about them being illegal or illegitimate. (The full press release may say that; however, their press site is presently down). You are [finally] making a point with the Kuwait comparison, but I would offer in exchange, what if the state of Virginia changed its flag while seceded from the union? Would you insist its pre-secession flag be given top or equal billing, even though it was the states right to change it? That's how I see the coat of arms thing. I's been nearly 15 years - at some point, you have to start accepting local decisions, if not the greater context of Nagorno-Karabakh. Regardless of whether or not NK is legal, cities and towns still exist and still have decisions and elections. --Golbez (talk) 14:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster your comparison is offending and I expect an apology. Are you really comparing the local population with Saddam having invaded Kuwait? And you are wrong, the Azerbaijani government is NOT recognized as the authority there by any nations. Had the US, World Bank or any nation recognized as only authority the government of Azerbaijan, they'd handle the aid packages to the Azerbaijani government. They do not. Official recognition does not amount to a recognized authority of the Azerbaijani government. Also your offending language like 'separatist' is out of place. The Coat of Arm is decided by those who represent the population there, a Coat of Arms has nothing to do with international recognition or anything of that sort. VartanM (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about handing the aid to Baku, Darfur is universally considered part of Sudan, but aid is shipped directly to the region when it can be. But that's a rather minor point, though I don't think your comparison is too relevant. The fact of the matter here is, even if the national politics are in dispute or wholly non-existent, municipal ones continue. Unfortunately, press.coe.int is still down (or rather, has no DNS record) so I can't read the full press release about the local elections. --Golbez (talk) 00:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, "not legitimate" doesn't mean "illegal." Legitimacy has to do with acceptance, while legality has to do with law, and NK, as we have demonstrated million times, is fully legal. When CoE says "we don't consider the new presidential elections legitimate," they are saying "let's freeze the status quo and not make any moves that disturbs the situation, until the status is finalized." It does not mean "we recognize the old Azeri officials in NK." At most it means "we don't recognize the present post-election Armenian government, only the pre-election Armenian government."--TigranTheGreat (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Golbez, here’s another source for you: [14] The self-government in NK is not considered legitimate by the international community. CoE clearly says that "These so-called 'elections' cannot be legitimate." You cannot speak about the will of the local population, as Shusha had about 98% Azerbajani population, which was expelled. That’s why the international community does not accept legitimacy of the lections in NK. You talk about state of Virginia, but it sort of has its own legitimate flag within the US. If it breaks away and becomes an independent state, its symbols could be treated as state symbols. But here we talk about the town. You still have not answered about the Kuwait analogy. It is exactly the same in NK, separatists (which are actually a cover for the actions of a neighboring state) captured a town, expelled its entire population and then established some symbols, despite the legitimacy of the local authorities not being accepted by anyone. How can you present symbols of the illegitimate authority as official symbols? Please explain. Grandmaster (talk) 05:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Kuwait was invaded by another country-Iraq. Armenians of NK re-captured a city that that is within the state of Nagorno Karabakh Republic, and that was in NK ever since NK was formed. CoE isn't talking about municipal elections, they are talking about the general parlamentary and presidential elections in NKR. And they are not saying "we are recognizing the old Azeri mayors as the city's officials," they are just saying they are not recognizing the new elections. This is like the Azeri flag--as long as NKR is the one to decide what emblems to use, we use those emblems.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 10:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster you are unbelievable, your disturbing analogies only hurt your credibility. Also funny how you use double standards. 98% Azeri? Armenian population was not that low even when Pana Khan founded the city. The only reason that place was kept so homogenous was because of the decades of massacres and measures from Azerbeijani government to change NK demographics. It was expected that Armenian majority would turn into minority in two decades if NK didn't liberate itself. As for your comparison with Kuwait, Kuwaiti population did not want the Iraqi regime, much like the NK did not want the Azerbaijani oppressive regime. We see what happened to Nakhichevan, where everything Armenian is vandalized and destroyed and then claimed that there is not a single thing there that had ever been Armenian. In two decades we know what would have happened.

Also, please stop with your unsubstantiated claims, municipal decisions are municipal, period. And I have hard time believing that the US or the World Bank, the NATO states etc. would have some relations with Iraqi authorities in Kuwait the way it is happening right now with NK, where such countries partially recognize the de facto authorities there. Lets be honest here, had there been no oil in Azerbaijan, NK problem would have been already solved. VartanM (talk) 00:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No one recognizes NK fully or partially. Period. And Azerbaijan was invaded by Armenia, even the US accepts that, see CIA website and US state department website. So the analogy with Kuwait is logical. International community does not recognize the results of any elections in NK, be that presidential or municipal. You say "Kuwaiti population did not want the Iraqi regime", but did people of Shusha want the separatist regime? Of course not, but they were expelled from their homes. So this emblem cannot be used here, as it is not legitimate. Grandmaster (talk) 11:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well sorry, go tell this to the US State department, for the millions they sent every year to the NK authorities, which you claim they do neither recognize fully or partially. Also go tell this the the World Bank and the various NATO states. Also go tell this to the countries who consult unofficial NK embassies around the world. And your analogy is laughable at best. Did the NK wanted the oppressive Azerbaijani regime? Where are you getting the statistic of Azerbaijani population of 98%? Again even when the city was founded the Tartar population wasn't that high.

And in case you missed it, Azerbaijan too invaded what is part of Armenia, small, true, but I think it makes a differences in the equation also. Also, funny logic on expelled populations and emblems. Then perhaps several places like Baku, Sumgait, Gandzak, Kars, Van, Mush, Erzrum etc. should have their CoA's removed, because the entirety of their Armenian population was expelled. Oh and the Azeri population was not expelled but was evacuated by the Azerbaijani army, the city was solely occupied by soldiers who were daily shelling Stepanakert, when Armenians liberated it. VartanM (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It is very simple. NK is a de jure non-existing state. Its symbols cannot be presented as official or even unofficial, considering that they do not represent the population of the city, which was expelled. Grandmaster (talk) 07:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This is still nonsense, municipal symbols are not regulated by higher government bodies. VartanM (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If there's no legitimate municipality, how can it have a legitimate symbol? Grandmaster 07:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Because a municipality is independent from the recognition of the higher body as independent. Municipalities choose their symbols. I don't see what you don't understand there.VartanM 17:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The Penny Cyclopedia

Could someone please transcribe the "Georgia" entry of The Penny Cyclopedia[15] that is being used as a source, and place it on Wikisource as s:The Penny Cyclopedia/Georgia. It would also be helpful if "Caucasus Calendar" and other old PD sources in Russian where placed on the Russian Wikisource, so that they can be easily read and possibly even translated into English. Thank you. John Vandenberg (talk) 08:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I can transcribe Penny encyclopedia. The article about Georgia covers all three present day Transcaucasian states. I have no access to Caucasus Calendar, though. Grandmaster (talk) 05:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Grandmaster (talk) 12:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Warning on FAKE or IRRELEVANT references

I just checked sources supplied by Parishan, Grandmaster and others and they proved to be containing fake or irrelevant references. Vishnevski (I asked to translate his online work from Russian) says nothing about the demographics of Shusha. Shavrov and the Penny encyclopedia say nothing about the demographics of Shusha either (in addition what Penny encyclopedia says about Karabakh refers to a territory as big as 13,000 sq. miles which comprises the Turkic-populated lowlands and Armenian-peopled highlands). This is an attmpt to push OR and POV by verifiably fake references. Bassenius (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Jayvdb looks like a sock of Parishan/Grandmaster/Atabek. And neither does he explain his rv action; in addition he insulted TigranTheGreat. Please explain yourself. Bassenius (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I had a little conversation with Jayvdb [[16]] no result. Really its preferable to discuss if something in sourced addings is dubious before editwarrings. Andranikpasha (talk) 22:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This Jay dude has previously intervened in Armenian-Azerbaijani disputes, consistently reverting in favor of the Azeris. If not a sock, definitely looks like a meatpuppet.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 03:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree too - very suspicious. Also: any other attempts to insert Shavrov should be reverted automatically. The apparent sockpuppet defies logic, good manners and Wiki rules. Verjakette (talk) 04:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It is strange that you accuse a Wikipedia admin of being a sock. How about assuming a good faith as per the Wikipedia rules and the latest ruling of arbcom, which specifically mentions necessity to adhere to AGF? I must note that this is not the first time certain users attack admins, who try to ensure accuracy and prevent edit wars in wiki articles. A similar behavior was on Armenia related articles. This may need to be brought to the attention of the arbcom. Grandmaster (talk) 11:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Guys, why in heavens name are you accusing people of being sock puppets on the talk page of an article, about a city no less?? This talk page is solely for the purpose of discussing the content of the article, and is often read by curious reader of the article. I did not edit war - I rejected a diff that I considered to be extremely derisive. I have explained that at User talk:TigranTheGreat. If anyone thinks my edits are in any way suspicious, that is fine - please compile evidence and submit it in the appropriate place, but this is not the appropriate page for mere suspicions about user conduct to be discussed. John Vandenberg (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, despite you wrote that Bassenius is a possible sock (as anyone of us!), he seems to be a newbie and also needs some good faith from us and explanations. And he says the info you sent here is fake and irrelevant. Im personally will be grateful if you represent any quotes proving your sourced addings. Thanks in advance! Andranikpasha (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, out of anyone here, maybe besides Atabek, I think you are the last person who should speak of assuming good faith in relation with accusing members of being socks. Have you forgoten how many people were blocked because of your baseless accusations that they might be socks, or the number of chechusers filled. And for your information, Azizbekov from last confirmations I had, was not a sock of a banned user, Artaxiad with one of his socks later claimed to be him so that his other socks were not exposed. You see, you have successfully gotten various users blocked for sockpuppetry and now you are here claiming that others should assume good faith.VartanM (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I speak Russian, and I confirm that Grandmaster's sources do not provide adequate information (e.g Вишневский). Penny and Shavrov too. I suggest to penalize Grandmaster for that. It is not possible to check every single source in Wikipedia, and if fraud is used, Wikipedia turns into Fakeipedia. As Bassenius pointed it out, Grandmaster pushes an unverifiable and old Azerbaijani propaganda claim that Armenians are not native in Karabakh or that they "came" to Shushi from Turkey or Iran. This is a pathetic, self-evident lie, and no sources on earth could possibly support it. Karabakh has been one of the regions where Armenians constituted a permanent majority since the Roman times. And he lies as only a Muslim can lie to a non-Muslim (they, Muslims, call it "kitman" - "strategic lie"). That is why I told him some time ago - give up, you cannot "win." Verjakette (talk) 04:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I provided many sources confirming that Armenians immigrated to Karabakh. Among them Britannica, penny cyclopedia, and individual scholars. For unknown reason all those sources were removed from the article. I think we are ready for the third arbcom. And Vartan, you need to back up your claims with facts. Rfcu is a normal procedure here, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with filing it. I encourage any of you to file rfcu on me if you have any doubts, I will personally support such a request. And if you have such a good knowledge about Artaxiad's intentions, why didn't you share it with the admins? And why wouldn't you refrain from making personal comments and concentrate on the problems with the article instead? The rules say: Comment on content, not on the contributor. Stick to them, please. Grandmaster (talk) 07:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, the removal of sources was discussed right in this section, perhaps you should read it. The facts is that every new Armenian user is accused of being a sock by you or Atabek. You have continuously disregarded WP:BITE and WP:AGF by accusing them of being socks, some even got blocked because of it. I have no insider knowledge about Artaxiads socks. His as much as disruptive to you as he is to me. One look at Azizbekov's contributions shows that he was not Artaxiad and defiantly not Armenian. Why would I file a rfcu on you? I'm sure you are smart enough not to use socks. About commenting on content and not contributors, perhaps you should read your previous post before making accusations. VartanM (talk) 07:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Again baseless accusations. Filing rfcu is not equal to accusing someone of something. Rfcu is an accepted procedure here. I understand that some people are not happy that so many socks were exposed, but thanks to rfcus filed by me the community got rid of dozens of socks. Check the ones on Artaxiad, for example. If someone is actually concerned about rfcu, it only shows that he has something to hide. I don't know if Azizbekov is a sock of Artaxiad or not, I did not make any decisions on that. If you have a real proof that he is not a sock or a banned user, take the issue elsewhere. This is a talk page of an article, and is not a place to attack other editors, including admins, either. Grandmaster (talk) 08:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, friend, I'm going to sleep. Have a wonderful day. VartanM (talk) 08:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Good night. Grandmaster (talk) 10:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Good evening Grandmaster, you have claimed that Azizbekov was a sock for sure, and your suspicions about editors was well over the mark. As for Artaxiad, anyone of us can know who is and isn't Artaxiad, don't make this as if you have exposed anything that others didn't know. VartanM (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Mind WP:AGF. I did not claim anything. If you know that Azizbekov is not a sock, take it elsewhere. If it is just your assumption, I don't think anyone would be interested. And yes, I did help expose Artaxiad's very first sock [17] and many others for the benefit of the wiki community, but this is not a place to discuss this, this is a talk page of an article. Please stop this offtopic discussion. Grandmaster 07:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

For how long are you gonna throw policies at my face? You're telling me AGF because I pointed out that you did not assume good faith? My point was that you should be the last one requesting people who accuse others of being socks and to assume good faith. You answered and turned this into a a discussion. VartanM 17:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Bassenius, Verjakette, and Hnarakert are all blocked as socks. See this checkuser: [18] Now it is clear why some people were trying so hard to prevent this rfcu. Grandmaster 05:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Artaxiad is really screwing with any possibility of getting this article unprotected and useful if he keeps that shit up. It's not helping his side at all. --Golbez 08:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for making my point Grandmaster. Never assume good faith and then blame others when they do. Oh and checkuser didn't confirm them as Artaxiad's sock. Likely does not mean is. I'm doing my own checkuser right now. VartanM 18:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

But checkuser did not say that it was him. It said that the accounts are likely to be used by the same person, but whether it is Artaxiad or not was not clear. Still socking, whether Artaxiad or not. And User:Vishap is the latest sock. Grandmaster (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Shusha coa.jpg

Image:Shusha coa.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for sorting out the problem John. VartanM (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Intro

Golbez, I think saying "It's Administrative region of Azerbaijan while under control of NK" equates Shushi to the rayons surrounding the NKR. Shushi is part of NKR as declared by it. Azerbaijan has also declared it as part of its Shusha rayon (they abolished NKAO). In fact, following your change, we could state that Stepanakert, the capital of NK, is an administrative region of Azerbaijan, which obviously would be POV. I think using "Considers" is more neutral. We can add that NKR is not recognized by other states to restore the balance.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

NK is internationally considered to be part of Azerbaijan, and it is not just Azerbaijan who considers it to be its integral part. No need to add misleading info. Grandmaster (talk) 07:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

As i understand we should follow some accpted norms of international law.

Andranikpasha, back at removing referenced material after the lifting of his parole. Please, stop doing that, follow WP:NPOV and achieve consensus.

On a side note, why the article does not mention the fact that Shusha was founded as a capital of Karabakh khanate? Atabek 20:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Protected

After seeing that this edit war has been going on since at least November 16 - the last time Atabek edited the article - I've full-protected it until y'all can work our your differences. I protected it on "the wrong version"; it includes the "de jure" CoA that I have consistently campaigned against, hopefully this will show my neutrality in this - this is about stopping an edit war further down the page, not promoting any version of my own. I don't believe I've engaged in this page below the intro and CoA issues, so I figure I'm a blank slate for this. So, please tell me - simply and concisely - your views here in this section, no fighting please, and explain it to me like I'm a 10 year old, and we'll see about getting this thing unprotected as soon as possible. In the meanwhile, I'll look at the versions being fought over and see if there's any glaring logical errors. --Golbez 20:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The problems at current version of Shusha:

1. "emblem = Shusha-coat-of-arms-1843.gif". A coat of arms from 1843. If something is recognized as "de jure" we should have a source. We have not such one, so its a historical emblem nothing more.

I've removed editprotected, as it kind of goes against the notion of protection for edit warring. Responding to each issue in turn:

1. Not dealing with this right now; this is solely about the paragraphs being disputed later on in the article. We'll handle on edit war at a time.

I've put both versions down below, so I can compare them better. I hope you don't mind if I move your comments down there; the substance will not be altered. --Golbez 23:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Golbez, choosing the wrong version is not the way to demonstrate neutrality. Neutrality has to be on a subject, not between edit-warring parties. If one party is correct on a topic, there is nothing wrong with choosing that version. You know that putting the Azeri CoA here is like putting the Republic of Azerbaijan's CoA on the NK page, which was found to be absurd a year ago. It will be appropriate at least to remove the historical CoA from the protected version. Then the parties can war for the rest of the article.--TigranTheGreat 23:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm just dealing with the rest of the article right now. When I can unprotect the article knowing there will be no more edit wars over this section - which makes it really difficult to work on the rest of the article, since people have to work around incessant reversions - then we can discuss the CoA. (And the situations are slightly different, since that issue was much more illogical - it would be like including the US flag on the article of Virginia.) --Golbez 23:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Golbez, I don't see why you link your fact of protection of this page to my edit, as if I made major edits on this page or engaged in any particular conflict on talk or main space of it, when I did not. I simply edited based on facts. NK is officially recognized as part of Azerbaijan, so having Azerbaijani CoA is not just a compromise, it's a statement of a fact. Of course, Armenian CoA is de-facto one, but this does not establish a basis for removing a CoA of official version. Any kind of single-sided presentation of CoA in a disputed topic would not be a compromise, would it? Atabek (talk) 08:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Because I realized that you had last edited two weeks ago, which means that you weren't involved in the recent edit war - yet participating anyway. That shows that it's long-term, and it was time to stop it. That said, I'm not reading the rest of your comment - I've made it clear that, for the time being, I don't care about the CoA. Stop trying to discuss it with me. --Golbez (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Golbez, my edit two weeks ago shows that I am "participating anyway" in the war, when there are reverts going on daily if not hourly? Having 1RR restriction I don't see how that's possible. Anyways, as far as CoA goes, I believe I was responding to this comment of yours above: I protected it on "the wrong version"; it includes the "de jure" CoA that I have consistently campaigned against.... So I just brought up my points in support of the official CoA of the city in a country whose sovereignty over it is recognized by everyone. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 01:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed sections

Capital?

1. Considered to be a historical capital of the Karabakh region, Shusha was one of the cultural centers of Russian Transcaucasia.
2. Established as a capital of Karabakh khanate, Shusha became one of the cultural centers of South Caucasus after the Russian conquest of the region in first half of the 19th century.

• "Established as a capital of Karabakh khanate, Shusha became one of the cultural centers of South Caucasus after the Russian conquest of the region in first half of the 19th century." This text is less neutral than the old one. If any source proves it than ok. Andranikpasha 21:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree; I can find no sources - even from Karabakh websites - that state it was established as the capital of the khanate; the burden is on others to give sources that indicate this. I have to go with #1 until indicated otherwise. --Golbez 23:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• • • There are many primary sources, mostly in Russian, which say that the city was founded by Panah khan Javanshir as a capital of Karabakh khanate and was initially called Panahabad. All those sources are included in the article, among them Mirza Jamal Javanshir, Mirza Adigezal bey, etc. --Grandmaster 11:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Brokgauz article about Shusha says:

Ш. основана в 1752 г. Панах-Али-беком и получила свое название от селения Шушикент, расположенного невдалеке и существующего до сего времени. До 1823 г. составляла столицу ханства Карабахского. [19]

Shusha was founded in 1752 by Panah-Ali bek and received its name from the village of Shushikent, located nearby and existing to this day. Until 1823 it was the capital of Karabakh khanate.

Note the Panah-Ali was the ruler of Karabakh khanate, so Shusha was indeed founded as a capital of the khanate. --Grandmaster 14:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Founding a city does not make it your capital; Alexandria was never the capital of Macedon. So now we have a Russian source saying it was founded, and until 1823 was the capital; and two Armenian sources saying it was founded as a fort and became the capital later. Either way, I'm not sure it matters; at best, we can say "some sources say it was founded to be the khanate's capital". --Golbez 18:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A blog I found says: "Azerbaijanis date the founding of Shusha to the mid-1700s, when it became the capital of the independent khanate of Karabakh, though Armenians claim to have settled the area earlier. It was a mixed city throughout much of its history." I think that finally starts to explain to me (better than anyone here did) why this is a point of contention; I didn't realize it was the Azeris promoting this version of Shusha's history, I thought it was the Armenians. Hrm. I told you folks, explain it to me like I'm a 5th grader! :P And that returns me to my cardinal rule about Nagorno-Karabakh: Ain't no one knows what was going on up there before 1923. However, it seems undisputed that the fortress was built for the khanate, the area being populated previously notwithstanding. Therefore, the new compromise version I propose is down below. --Golbez (talk) 04:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not Azerbaijanis who say that. You can find this info in every neutral source about Shusha. See the quote from Russian Brokhauz below, for example. The city was founded as a fortress by the ruler of Karabakh khanate (An ethnic Azeri) on an empty place to defend himself from his numerous enemies. It is a well known fact. Grandmaster (talk) 06:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Great Soviet Encyclopedia:

В середине 18 в. Панах Али-ханом было основано Карабахское ханство, для защиты которого в начале 50-х гг. сооружена крепость Панахабад (в дальнейшем получила название Шуша, по имени близлежащего селения), ставшая столицей ханства. [20]

In the middle of the 18th century Panah-Ali khan founded the Karabakh khanate, for the defense of which in the early 50s the fortress of Panahabad (which later was called Shusha, after the name of a nearby village) was built and which became the capital of the khanate.

Grandmaster (talk) 07:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Golbez, here is the list of sources from Google Books [21]. To name a couple there in particular:

• "A Concise Encyclopaedia of Russia" - Page 492 by Sergej Utechin

Shusha was founded in 1752 and until 1823 was capital of the Karabakh Khanate.

• "The Dictionary of Art" by Jane Turner - Art - 1996

'Shusha. Regional centre in the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan and economic centre of Karabakh, it became the capital of the Karabakh khanate....

Thanks. Atabek (talk) 08:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand, there was an existing village named Shusha; nearby, the fortress was built to serve as the capital. That could account for the confusion. Neither of you, by the way, can be right, as per the pre-1923 policy, so the best we can do is say that it was a capital, with the fortress built to be the capital, but the town was pre-existing. Anything wrong with that? Anything? --Golbez (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Golbez, what do you mean by 1923 policy? I brought two sources, and can bring another dozen citing that Shusha was a center/capital of Karabakh khanate in the early 19th century. I don't quite see what Andranikpasha is trying to dispute as he was claimed to be doing here, does he deny that Karabakh khanate existed and that Shusha was its center? I don't see why do we have to spend so much time trying to iron out basic facts which are accepted by either side of the conflict. Atabek (talk) 01:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

On Nagorno-Karabakh, it turns out that, before the establishment of the NKAO, no one knows what was going on there. At all. Valid sources give completely opposite testimony; therefore, we basically said, okay, if it happened before 1923, the best you can do is source it and say 'this person said this happened', rather than presenting it as fact. That appears to be the route that will have to be taken here. --Golbez (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Golbez, there was no town on the location of Shusha before the fortress was built. The village of Shushikend is located in a different place, though close to the city. I don’t know how you came to a conclusion that the town was pre-existing. How could they build a fortress in the existing town? According to Mirza Jamal Javanshir Karabagi (1773-1853), the author of Karabakh-nameh ('History of Karabakh'), one of the most significant chronicles on the history of Karabakh in 18-19th centuries, prior to construction of the fortress by Panah Ali khan there were no buildings at that location and it was used as a cropland and pasture by the people of the nearby Shushakend village. So it was an empty field used by people of Shushikend for their economic needs. Grandmaster (talk) 06:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

How 'nearby' is Shushakend? If it's close enough that it was a field used by them, then the village could simply have migrated closer over time. --Golbez (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Golbez, many towns and villages existed around the present location of Washington, D.C. prior to its building and establishment as a capital. This nevertheless does not establish a basis for questioning the name of the city or its belonging. THanks. Atabek (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Name one town that existed at the present location of Washington DC.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 01:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Georgetown. However, as in my question above, over time it has become part of Washington. All I want to know is - is it possible that the confusion about the founding of Shusha is merely a product of this kind of merging/migration/whatever. --Golbez (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The important distinction is that there is no similarity between names of Georgetown and Washington, hence no evidence that one evolved into the other. In the case of Shushi, there was a town called Shoshaberd (in Armenian--fortress of Shosh). It later became Shushi. And I have no idea what Shushakend is.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Basically, that the fortress was built by the khan is not in dispute. That it was built to serve as his capital should probably not be disputed (just speaking of the fortress here). Likewise, that a village was existing in the nearby area appears not to be in dispute. Since the fort was named after the village... where is the dispute? --Golbez (talk) 03:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The dispute is with regard to your question if there was some settlement at the present location of the city. All reliable sources make it clear that there was nothing there, it was built on an empty spot. The village is located in a different place, and originally the town was called Panahabad after its founder Panah khan. Shushakend still exists as a separate village, it never merged with the town of Shusha. Otherwise, all the points that you mentioned are not disputed. Grandmaster (talk) 07:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That I did not know, that Shushakend still existed. Funny thing about "Shushakend", though - the only mentions of it on Google are Wikipedia mirrors, which leaves the only reference one in Russian from Mirza - which I cannot read, and I suspect some people will question the neutrality of. (I'd use google translation but the site is down as well) --Golbez (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried google earth? It may show both the village and the city. I cannot check it right now, but I will later. Grandmaster (talk) 07:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

As for Mirza Jamal, it is a Muslim (Azerbaijani) chronicle of the 19th century, used by Armenian sources (such as Bournatian) as well. It is one of the major sources on the history of Karabakh khanate, along with Mirza Adigezal bey. Shushakend is mentioned by both Brokgauz and GSE. Grandmaster (talk) 08:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the scope of this thread is getting a bit lost. The thread started from this claim by Andranikpasha:

• "Established as a capital of Karabakh khanate, Shusha became one of the cultural centers of South Caucasus after the Russian conquest of the region in first half of the 19th century." This text is less neutral than the old one. If any source proves it than ok

I have provided two sources to support my edit quoted above. The fortress was established as a capital of Karabakh khanate and Shusha did become the cultural center of South Caucasus after Russian conquest. What does Shushikend or its existence in the region have to do with the quote above? So far I see no evidence presented to contrary, so I would suggest that Andranikpasha disputes information when he does have a well defined counter evidence. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 11:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Because the competing claim seems to be whether or not modern Shusha is an outgrowth of a town that existed there before the fortress, or an outgrowth of the foundation of the fortress itself. That there was a fortress built there appears not to be in dispute; only whether or not there was an existing population at that specific point. --Golbez (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Who says that there was a town in that location before Shusha was founded? So far I have not seen a single credible source. All sources, Armenian, Azeri, Russian, British, etc say that the city was founded by Panah-khan. I don't understand how did you come to a conclusion that there was some sort of a settlement there before foundation of a fortress? Grandmaster (talk) 10:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Another source, Thomas de Waal:

Shusha, situated dramatically on a cliff-top, is the oldest citadel in Karabakh. The town was built in 1750 by the Azerbaijani dynastic leader Panakh Khan in his drive to dominate the region. After that it grew into the third largest town in the Caucasus, home to a prosperous population of both Azerbaijanis and Armenians, famous as the "cradle" of Azerbaijani poets and musicians and the hometown of many Armenian architects and sculptors. [22] --Grandmaster (talk) 12:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say there was a town in the spot the fortress was built on - I said that there was a town nearby, obviously enough nearby for the fortress to take the name. This is not in dispute, is it? --Golbez (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a town, but a village. The existence of the village nearby is not in dispute, moreover, it is verifiable info. Grandmaster (talk) 06:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Correct, but you forgot to say that all the villages were Armenian. VartanM (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure about all villages, but this particular one had Armenian population. Grandmaster (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's time to put an end to this. Does anyone dispute that, the existence of any village notwithstanding, the fortress was built by the khan? --Golbez (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Russian Empire

1. The Karabakh khanate was eliminated in 1822. During the Russo-Persian War (1826-1828), the citadel at Shusha held out for several months and never fell. After this Shusha ceased to be a capital of a khanate and instead became an administrative capital of first the Karabakh province (1822-1840) and then of the Shusha district (uyezd) of the Elisabethpol Governorate (1840-1923).
2. The Karabakh khanate was eliminated in 1822. During the Russo-Persian War (1826-1828), the citadel at Shusha held out for several months and never fell. After this Shusha ceased to be a capital of a khanate and instead became an administrative capital of first the Karabakh province (1822-1840) and then of the Shusha district (uyezd) of the Elisabethpol Governorate (1840-1923). Nevertheless, Shusha grew and developed, in part due to Russian-sponsored Armenian settlement in Karabakh and other parts of Azerbaijan that took place throughout the 19th century. Virtually every Russo-Turkish war produced new waves of Armenian refugees who resettled in many parts of Russian ruled Caucasus, including Shusha.

• re number 2: User Bassenius called it FAKE or IRRELEVANT references: "I just checked sources supplied by Parishan, Grandmaster and others and they proved to be containing fake or irrelevant references. Vishnevski (I asked to translate his online work from Russian) says nothing about the demographics of Shusha. Shavrov and the Penny encyclopedia say nothing about the demographics of Shusha either (in addition what Penny encyclopedia says about Karabakh refers to a territory as big as 13,000 sq. miles which comprises the Turkic-populated lowlands and Armenian-peopled highlands). This is an attmpt to push OR and POV by verifiably fake references". Despite we many times asked to Grandmaster if he really distributed a false info he never prove by any quotation that he was right. So we can say it was FALSE. And the another one source Grandmaster represented has nothing common with Shusha, no this name in that text about Karabakh as a region. Andranikpasha 21:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I am unfortunately unable to access or read the first two references, which leaves me with only the Penny Cyclopedia one, and I see nothing in the linked material that has anything to do with the sourced paragraph. At the very least, that source has nothing to do here. --Golbez 00:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I’m not interested in comments by sock accounts and not going to comment on them, therefore any references to Bassenius and his comments will be ignored. As for the Armenian immigration to Karabakh, the fact is supported by multiple sources. I’m reposting them again to allow for independent evaluation:

The penny cyclopædia of the Society for the diffusion of useful knowledge. 1833:

The population of Karabagh, according to the official returns of 1832, consisted of 13965 Mohammedan and 1491 Armenian families, besides some Nestorian Christians and Gypsies. This limited population may be ascribed to the frequent wars which have long desolated the province, and to the emigration to Persia of many Mohammedan families since its subjection to Russia, although many Armenians were induced by the Russian government, after the peace of Toorkmanchay, to emigrate from Persia to Karabagh.

Britannica:

The Russian campaigns against the Persians and the Turks in the 18th and 19th centuries resulted in large emigrations of Armenians under Muslim rule to the Transcaucasian provinces of the Russian Empire and to Russia itself. Armenians settled in Yerevan, T'bilisi, Karabakh, Shemakha (now Samaxi), Astrakhan, and Bessarabia. At the time of the massacres in Turkish Armenia in 1915, some Armenians found asylum in Russia. A number settled in the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh within the neighbouring Muslim country of Azerbaijan. Armenians now constitute about three-fourths of the population of Nagorno-Karabakh; since 1988 there have been violent interethnic disputes and sporadic warfare between Armenians and Azerbaijanis in and around the enclave. [23]

During the turmoil of World War I, Armenia and Azerbaijan briefly achieved independence. However, the complex demography of Transcaucasia made it impossible to create ethnically homogeneous states, and the focus of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict shifted from Baku to the area known as Nagorno-Karabakh where, at the time, Armenians formed the great majority (over 90%) of the population, although many of them had come to this area in the nineteenth century as immigrants from Turkey and Iran. This mountainous "island" of Armenians in an Azerbaijani "sea" was separated from the rest of eastern Armenia, and it was fiercely contested throughout the short period of independence of the Caucasian states.

Niall M. Fraser; Keith W. Hipel; John Jaworsky; Ralph Zuljan. A Conflict Analysis of the Armenian-Azerbaijani Dispute. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 34, No. 4. (Dec., 1990), pp. 652-677.

As one can see, the fact of the Armenian immigration to NK is supported by multiple authoritative sources, both old and modern. I don’t see any good reason for their removal. And statistical data shows how the demographic balance in Shusha shifted after Karabakh became part of the Russian empire. It is enough to compare the statistics of population from 1833 and later periods. Grandmaster 12:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This source does not contradict what I was saying. There were immigrants, but those were the ones that escaped Ebrahim Khan's oppression (we aren't speaking for many decades difference in date, check you dates). Secondly, for every sources you provide of Armenian resettlement I can provide 10 sources of Turkic settlement in the whole region, extending for several centuries.

And I have already repeated and documented by sources that before the eighteenth century, there were no Turkic people living in the mountainous region, it was only in the 1750s that they penetrated that region, Panah build his Shusha by force and settled Turkic people there. From then on, until Ebrahim Khan there was a massive Armenian depopulation in that region and a settlement of Turkic element. In the region of Shushi before 1750 there were no recorded Turkics.

So either we include the centuries of Turkic resettelment in the entire region, which is much better documented, more notable and extending far beyond the few years of Armenians returning after their eviction from the oppressive Khans, or we exclude both. And when I am saying this I am making much more concessions than you, because I am excluding a much more notable position covering a much wider period. VartanM 17:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The Armenians that migrated to Karabakh from Turkey and Iran were not natives to the region. None of the sources say that they were people who returned to the region after they left it. That is your OR. Armenian immigration to the region is verifiable fact, there's more than one neutral source to support that. Grandmaster (talk) 11:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If you look in the above discussion you will find sources on the oppression and vacating of the Armenian population, plus Bournoutian which was already used. This is a sourced info, and more sources can be provided to support it. Second, you act funny, Bournoutian contributed in Iranica, which you like quoting, says that they returned. It is your claim that they were not native of the region, which is OR, it is not my claim that they returned but it is a sourced info published in a peer reviewed publication. The sources you provided do not provide that information, but this does not contradict the source I provided. Also, haven't I told you that the term fact does not apply? Do you even read what I write?

Also I have sourced that there was no Turkic people in the mountainous region before 1750, none of Turkic people were native, they came from Mongolia, while Armenians have been associated with the place since about 600 BC, so I don't know on what you are hitting when you claim that they are not native.VartanM (talk) 04:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not my claim. Indeed, some of Armenian nobility fled to Ganja due to the conflict with the khan of Karabakh, but none of them went to Persia or Turkey. Plus, none of the sources that I quoted say that the immigrants were natives to Karabakh, so that is your personal interpretation. And I have not seen a single reliable source about Turkic population coming to Karabakh from Mongolia, so no original research please. Grandmaster (talk) 07:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You refer to Bournoutian, who is not a neutral source, and who tries to deny the obvious facts, supported by many sources, including contemporary ones. As for the Armenians who left Karabakh during the reign of Ibrahim khan, Bournoutian makes it clear that they did not move to Persia and Turkey, where Armenian immigrants came to Karabakh from. Bournoutian claims: “The only major immigration into Karabakh was by the former Armenians of Karabakh who had escaped the oppression of its ruler Ebrahim Khan, some as late as the 1790s, who had sought refuge in Ganje, Georgia, and Erevan”. As we can see, this is an attempt to deny the facts supported by many other sources. Penny and Britannica talk about Armenian immigration to Karabakh from Persia and Turkey, and not from Ganja, Georgia, and Erevan. Therefore Bournoutian cannot be trusted in this issue, as his bias is very clear and he attempts to deny what many reliable sources support. Grandmaster (talk) 07:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You didn't even read what I have provided:

Au mois de mai 1244(1795), Agha-Mohhamed Khan ordona aux Khans de Khoï, d'Erwan et de Nakhidchewan, d'entrer avec leurs troupes dans le Karabakh, et de le dévaster entièrement. Ils y arrivèrent pendant la récolte, détruisirent tout, et firent prionniers beaucoup de chrétiens qu'ils vendirent aux Turcs. ...L'excès de la famine et des maladies força beaucoup d'habitans du Karabagh à s'expatrier et à se rendre dans les contrées d'Erwan, Gandja, Nakhidchewan, Khoï, Wan, Bayazit, etc. Mais, comme les ordonnances du chah étoient très-sévères contre ce malheureux pays, plusieurs furent fait prisonniers en chemin, ou massacrées par les musulans et par les voleurs, ... Le bonheur et l'espérance des Arméniens du pays d'Artzakh s'étoit évanoui comme un songe; car ils y avoient été auparavant très-nombreyx, ayant beaucoup d'églises et de braves guerriers.

So much for your some of Armenian nobilities fled I didn't know that the whole population was a nobility. This same work reports that Armenian population of Eriwan was forcefully moved to Kars, the author was himself witness of the Armenian population movement to Kars. He writes:

Vous habiteres ici dans les pays Bambag, qui n'est pas très-éloigné d'Etchmiadsin; et, sitôt qu'Eriwan sera tombé en notre pouvoir, vous retourneres dans votres patries.

In short, the Russians promised that once Yerevan was under their hands, they will be able to return. This witness account is supporting what Bournoutian claims (and beside Bournoutians argument is supported by records). You didn't even bothered to ask someone to translate the piece, you have again discredited an author because of his ethnicity, just like you did above on Croissant used source. You are acting antagonistically and sounds as if you are fishing things to discredit authors rather than reading carefully and asking for more source. If you are set with your position and don't want to even consider what the other is saying why are you even bothering answering?

Also, it is funny how you turn what I am saying as a joke. You are basically putting words in my mouth. What I said was that the Turkic tribes came originally from Mongolia and haven't significantly populated the region up until the thirteenth century. And the Tribes haven't penetrated Artsakh up until the eighteenth century. Yet I haven't seen you once adding such information anywhere while the word 'resettled' is used as a mantra on several articles. VartanM (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I can find million Azerbaijani sources similar to Mouradian, "The Mountainous Karabagh Question", will you be willing to accept them as a source of info on Armenian settlement in Karabakh? Let's be serious here, anyone who uses such sources cannot be considered reliable. And I do not speak French, please provide translation of your source. Thanks. Grandmaster (talk) 06:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You can't find a million, the Azerbaijani sources you can find are all from the Azerbaijan's Academia of Science. Mouradian has been published in peer reviewed publications in the West and is a Western scholar. As for reliability, you go beyond editorial judgment when you discredit scholars solely based on their ethnicity.

Here is the translation: On May 1244(1795), Agha-Mohhamed Khan ordered to the Khans of Khoï, of Erwan and Nakhichevan, to enter with their men in to Karabakh and devastate it completely. They came during pasture collect, destroyed everything, they made many Christians as prisoners to the Turks. ...The excess of famine and disease forced many inhabitants of Karabakh to leave for Erwan, Gandja, Nakhichevan, Khoï, Van, Bayazit, etc. But the orders of the Shah was very severe against this poor country, many were made prisoners on the road or massacred by the Muslem or by thiefs,... the happiness and hope of the Armenians of the country of Artzakh vanished like a dream; because prior they were very numerous, having many churchs and fearless warriors.

And

You will live here in the country of Bambag, which is not too far from Etchmiazin, and as soon as Erwan falls in our power, you will return to your homeland.

Which is exactly what happened.VartanM (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly. During the wars a large part of population of Karabakh was forcefully removed, this was done by Nadir Shah and Aga Mohammed shah, and it affected both Muslim and Christian population. That’s why penny mentions that the province was desolated by wars. I can cite sources about how Nadir shah deported all Qajars from Karabakh. However Russian sponsored immigration of Armenian population to Karabakh from Persia and Turkey is a verifiable fact, and there’s no evidence to support your claim that all those people previously lived in this region. I see no reason why the info from Penny cyclopedia should be removed from the article. Grandmaster (talk) 10:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Invasions of Aga Mohammed khan affected the entire population of Karabakh, both Muslim and Armenian, and many fled to different regions. Saying that all those people were Armenian is inaccurate. This is from an Armenian primary source, Mirza Yusuf Nersesov:

When Aqa Muhammad Khan got the news about Qizil Ayagh's return, recruited new forces and decided to conquer Karabagh. Two years later in spring he advanced towards Azerbaijan with his huge army. The last three-year celestial and terrestrial calamity made people face dearth and famine in the regions of Karabagh. The majority of the population dispersed to the districts of Shaki, Shirvan, Karadagh, to get food. Consequently, the lack of people to defend the fortress of Shushi was evident. [24]

Plus, according to this source, people from the region did not move to Turkey or Iran. Grandmaster (talk) 12:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, are you kidding me? I have posted a memoir of the time, a primary source, which claims that the action was taken against the Christian population and that the initial Armenian population was deported. We are not here to build or cook some Azerbaijani Academia of science mythologies, hasn't Adil basically not attempted this already? You are doing original research, it is your assumption that the population means Muslim and Armenian, which is not so, the mountainous region was always populated by Armenians and not Tartars, Tartars were nomads and living in the mountainous region for three months per year and this does not amount to a permanent 12 months a year. 3 months is slightly more than the many rich big bellied Americans and Canadians do when they pass 2 months in Florida each year, Fedayee's country side (Quebec) are reputed for that, why aren't they in Florida census?

Before the Turkmen's 15nth-16nth century settlement even in what is now Azerbaijan there was hardly any places where there wasn't more Armenian than Turkic tribes. The Muslim population then were Kurds, Persians, Circassians, Khazaks etc. NOT Turkic. So unless we start adding this stuff in the several articles you're not going to introduce the myths of the Azerbaijani Academia of Science down here in Wikipedia, by suppressing that Armenians were being kicked out from there and presenting their return as a resettlement against the poor Tartars which you claim were identified as Azeris. VartanM (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The town of Shusha had Muslim majority population at that time. And it was defended mostly by the Muslim population. If there were not enough people to defend the town because population left the area due to famine, obviously most of those people were Muslim. And I quoted you an Armenian primary source, not Azerbaijani academia. Read carefully, please. Grandmaster (talk) 06:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

At the time? Well, I think you should be the one who should read carefully, Shushi was formed by force even stealing the name of the nearby village. So your at the time does not make any sense as a single town does not march with the entire mountainous region which you have yet to document that there was any significant Turkic population that was living there. VartanM (talk) 02:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This is more about the city, than the region in general. So whatever happened before the foundation of the city is not much relevant. The city was founded as a fortress of Panahabad, and later (the exact time is not known) changed its name to Shusha. While initially a Muslim majority city, after subjection to the Russian empire it became Armenian majority, and this coincided with the large Armenian immigration to the region, which was sponsored by the Russian government, who considered Armenians to be more reliable than Muslims. Another source on that:

During the first decade of the Russian rule, immigration into Karabakh almost exclusively consisted of Russian military, administrators and traders. However, following the conclusion of the Russian-Iranian War of 1826 – 1828 and Treaty of Turkmanchai of 1828, which led to the incorporation into the Russian empire, of eastern Armenia and northern Azerbaijan, a first wave of mass Armenian immigration into the area began. The first wave consisted of Armenian refuges from the hostilities in Persia. It is estimated that approximately 57 000 Armenians migrated to Karabakh and Yerevan province after 1828, while approximately 35 000 Muslims – Azeris, Kurds and Lezgins, and various nomadic tribes – out of population of 117 000 left the area. The Russian – Turkish Wars of 1855 – 56 and 1877-78 led to further migration. This time Armenians settled in Karabakh and other parts of Tsarist Transcaucasia having left Ottoman Turkey, replacing the many thousands of Muslims who were, at this time, fleeing the Russian empire. Such migrations, albeit on a lesser scale, were to continue until the end of the nineteenth century.

Tim Potier. Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia: A Legal Appraisal. ISBN: 9041114777

Grandmaster (talk) 08:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Convenience break

This is BS, how is it that the number of Tartars increased in the area if they left? The official figures for the various years have been presented here, and nothing of the such is supported by those figures. Beside nothing is said as of how in the Entire Yerevan Khanate there was only 117 thousand people, during the prior years tens of thousands have left the place, I have provided primary sources, and I can provide more and this is from witnesses of the time, on how Armenians were leaving by the large, tens of thousands left for Georgia, even further North founding schools there during those years. Tim Potier is making unsubstantiated claims, how many more political annalists will you be using with modern rewritings to supplement years of scholarship about the topic. I told you either we include what happened to the Armenians in the last years of the 18th century or we don't include their returning back presented as some resettlement, you decide.VartanM (talk) 07:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"Azeri"

1. Beginning from 1830s the town was divided into two parts: Turkic-speaking Muslims lived in eastern lower quarters, Armenians settled in relatively new western upper quarters of the town.
2. Beginning from 1830s the town was divided into two parts: Azeris lived in eastern lower quarters, Armenians settled in relatively new western upper quarters of the town.

1. Beginning of the 20th century marked the first Armenian-Tartar clashes throughout what is now Azerbaijan.
2. Beginning of the 20th century marked the first Armenian-Azeri clashes throughout Azerbaijan.

1. First clashes between the Armenians and Tartars (predecessors of modern Azerbaijanis) took place in Baku in February 1905.
2. First clashes between the Armenians and Azeris took place in Baku in February 1905.

• Beginning from 1830s the town was divided into two parts: Azeris...", etc. Can be considered as an OR: no term of Azeris existed untill 1910's. Andranikpasha 21:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Quoting from History of the name Azerbaijan: "Historically the Turkic-speaking people of Iranian Azerbaijan and the Caucasus often called themselves or were referred to by some neighbouring peoples (e.g. Persians) as Turks, and religious identification prevailed over ethnic identification. When Transacaucasia became part of the Russian empire, Russian authorities, who traditionally called all Turkic people Tatars, called Azeris Aderbeijani/Azerbaijani or Caucasian Tatars to distinguish them from other Turkic people, also called Tatars by Russians." That seems pretty clear to me that, while the region has been called Azerbaijan (or one of the many variations thereof), the term "Azeris" or "Azerbaijanis" was not used until the region came under the control of the Russian Empire. Unfortunately, that happened in 1828 - just before 1830. Since the timeframe is so close, I see no harm in saying "Azeris" instead of "Turkic-speaking Muslims"; at the very least, "Azeris" is supported by the timeline.
• However, we DO have a source that says usage was delayed - "The term "Azerbaijanis" was not in wide use before the 1930s. See: Stuart J. Kaufman. Modern Hatreds: The Symbolic Politics of Ethnic War. Cornell University Press (June 2001). ISBN-10: 0801487366, pages 50-65" However, I find this odd, since there was an independent Azerbaijan Democratic Republic that existed before the 1930s; what did they call themselves? We need more sources on this on both sides before an option can be chosen. --Golbez 00:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Acad. V. Bartold: "The name Caucasian Azerbaijan was used only after the Revolution (1917 October Revolution), first by Musavatists and later, the Soviet Union". (Bartold, Works, Vol. II, part 1, Moscow, 1963, p. 775, in Russian)
• Dr Enayat Ollah: "There isnt even one place where Azerbaijan is mentioned. At the same time, there isnt any word about Azeris as natives of this region. But in all the volumes of the Tzarist Encyclopedia, Turkish speaking inhabitants of the Caucasus are referred to as Tartars".(Enayat Ollah Reza, Azerbaijan and Aran, Tehran, 1981, p. 53). Andranikpasha 02:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Yeah, it's starting to look more and more like it's the case that we probably shouldn't use the term pre-ADR. Anyone else have any statements? --Golbez 04:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read the FA article Azerbaijani people: [25] It says that Russian Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary also refers to Azerbaijanis as Aderbeijans in some articles. The term Azerbaijani was used (in various forms) before 1918, and so was the term Azerbaijan. See this, and check the date of the article, 1863: [26] Grandmaster 13:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Brokgauz article about Shusha says:

Жит. 25656 (13282 муж. и 12374 жен.), в том числе 56,5 % армян и 43,2 % азербайджанских татар; остальные — русские и евреи. [27]

Population 25656 (13282 males and 12374 females), including 56,5 % Armenians and 43,2 % Azerbaijani Tatars, the rest are Russians and Jews.

These statistics are from 1905, the difference with penny cyclopedia statistics of 1833 is apparent. Note that Brokgauz uses the term Azerbaijani Tatars. Grandmaster 14:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This is bogus and you know it, neither of the two say anything as Azerbaijani, they say Azerbaijan's Tartars, which basically means the Tartars of Azerbaijan. Your translation isn't very accurate either, Azerbaijani Tartars is more used as Azerbaijan's Tartars, which again mean the Tartars of Azerbaijan. The Russians were definitely calling them the Tartars. Besides the term Azerbaijan for northern Arax was a Russian doing because they were laying claim in the Persian territory called Azerbaijan. In fact, the term Azerbaijani Tartar's was used for Tartars of Persian Azerbaijan, the only Azerbaijan at that time before the Russians laid claim on it, and started calling the area north of Arax, Azerbaijan. See for example the publication by the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland publication in 1902 or At History of Protestant Missions in Near East by Julius Richter published in 1910, which it refers to the language in Northern Persia.

In fact, the term Azerbaijani was used more as of Azerbaijan than anything else and more for the dialect, as in the language of Azerbaijan. A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels which was published in 1908 also uses the term Azerbaijani Jews. The Jews of Azerbaijan. Azerbaijani Tartars means the Tartars of Azerbaijan.

Besides it should not be hard to understand that the an term is used for places and the i is rather used to mean of the or from the. We don't say Afganistani, we say Afgans to mean the people. Azerbaijani symatically and ethymologically can not refer to an identity because adding the i you say 'of the' or 'from the' when you use that termination. To document that Azerbaijan like you claim means an identity you have to document that the name of a location was used as an identity. It is like claiming Armenia is the name of a people. It is like claiming the Scotlandis to refer to the Welsh. But in that case it could be more debatable because of the defined identity of the Welsh for a considerable amount of time just like the Armenians (and for the Armenians it extends even longer).

The fact is that the term Tartar or Tatar is the terms used to refer to the Turkic population in that region, which was still pretty much heterogenous, including Turkmens and many other different Turkic tribes. Either the Tartars of Azerbaijan which was practical for the Russians to differentiate them from the Tartars of the North, or only Tartars. The clash of 1905 was called Armenian-Tartar clash, by changing it you are revising history and we are not allowed to do original research.VartanM 18:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No, Brokgauz does not say Tatars of Azerbaijan, that would be Татары Азербайджана, the article clearly uses the term Azerbaijani Tatars, i.e. Азербайджанские Татары. Moreover, some articles of the same encyclopedia use the term Aderbeijans, like the article called Turks:

Тюрки иранского типа — адербейджаны персидские и кавказские; [28]

i.e. Turks of Iranian type – Persian and Caucasian aderbeijans.

Also, I doubt that you actually read the sources that I post. You say:

Besides the term Azerbaijan for northern Arax was a Russian doing because they were laying claim in the Persian territory called Azerbaijan.

The link in my above post is to a JSTOR article, you can see the first page without using the JSTOR system. It is called Extracts from a Memorandum on the Country of Azerbaijan, by Keith E. Abbott, Esq., H.M. Consul-General in Persia.

This memorandum was written by the British consul in Persia, and note the date, it was written back in 1864. It says:

The country known to the Persians as Azerbaijan is divided between them and Russia, the latter Power possessing about five-eighths of the whole, which may be roughly stated to cover an area of about 80,000 square miles, or about the size of Great Britain; 50,000 square miles are therefore about the extent of the division belonging to Russia, and 30,000 of that which remains to Persia.

So clearly the name of Azerbaijan was used for the territories on both sides of Araks, and that was not the Russian creation. Also, I can see that Andranikpasha got an answer to this same question on another article: [29] Grandmaster (talk) 11:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That is not true, Азербайджанские translates as Azerbaijan. I did not say it can not be translated as Azerbaijani Tartars, what I said was that the way it is written makes Azerbaijani Tartars as The Tartars of Azerbaijan and either way we can not use those terms because they are misleading and need a disambiguation. Tartar or Tatar were both terms used commonly to refer to the Turkic people living in that region. And I fail to see what is your problem with that, they were called that so they should be called that for anything prior to 1918.

You also claim some articles and provide one source, which isn't clear and could be translated both ways, as meaning, those of Persian and Caucasian Azerbaijan.

Also, Abbott's work is not a credible source, Here is how it starts: The country known to the Persians as Azerbaijan... then she provides the extent of Azerbaijan. Every other source on this planet of the time dismiss and demolish completely her claim of known to the Persians, the Persians have several maps of their Azerbaijan never did it extend that far to completely cover as far as Nakhichevan and Soutern present day Georgia. The work is as credible as British delimitations of India, or their South Africa etc., sounds to be a publicity aimed at selling a country she has just cooked. In fact, the piece she wrote on her tour to Armenia is also contradicting, she places lands in both Armenia and the so called Azerbeijan.

And besides, what does Azerbaijan has anything to do with the identity of the Tatars? The fact is that there were no people associated with the place to bear that name, they weren't even calling themselves that way.VartanM (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Азербайджанские translates as Azerbaijani, you can ask any native Russian speaker if you wish. I provided you sources supporting the statement that Azerbaijani people were referred to as Azerbaijani Tatars or Azerbaijans prior to 1918. That is a verifiable info. Russians called all the Turkic people living in their empire Tatars, but in the modern context it sounds very confusing, because it is not clear which Turkic people are being discussed. However Brokgauz refers to Muslim population of Shusha town and Shusha uyezd as Azerbaijani Tatars, and uses it as an ethnonym. Besides, you contradict yourself. You say that the territories north of Arax were not called Azerbaijan at the time, but then say that Brokgauz refers to Turkic people living north of Araks as Tatars of Azerbaijan. Btw, British consul was he, not she, and that source is a proof that the term was used to signify the areas north of Araks. In any case, the term Azerbaijani is a better choice to avoid confusion, and this is what many scholarly sources do. Grandmaster (talk) 07:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Altavista translator translate the word quite accurately. Azerbaijani is only an etnonyme in the modern sense and languistically is akward. The i following a geographic place means from the region of', it is not synonymous to an ethnic identity. Ask any linguist and he will confirm this. For example if you translate the term Азербайджанские literally in modern sense it would be Azerbaijan and when added the other term, it will be translated as The Tartars of Azerbaijan. And I don't see how I contradict myself, when I don't advance anything I just report what is advanced and also you are putting words in my mouth. I said that the Russians laid claims on Persian territory, and also qualified the Tartars living there as being originally from Persian Azerbaijan and distinguish them from the Northern Tartars. But in both cases without exception they were called Tartars and even you admit that. You can not decide to revise history because you think that by doing so you are avoiding confusion, you are not avoiding confusion you are creating more of it. Prior to 1919 they were called Tartars, and it included many Turkic people, and it was far from being homogeneous, even the Turkic people there did not call themselves such.VartanM (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Why are we even arguing about this? You say that the term Azerbaijani cannot be used for events prior to 1918, but let’s see what major encyclopedias say:

Britannica:

Azerbaijanis on both sides of the border remained largely rural, though a small merchant class and working class appeared in the second half of the 19th century.

bloody clashes between Azerbaijanis and local Armenians took place in 1905 and 1918. [30]

Iranica:

AKHUNDZADA (in Soviet usage, AKHUNDOV), MIRZA FATH-ALI (1812-78), Azerbaijani playwright and propagator of alphabet reform; also, one of the earliest and most outspoken atheists to appear in the Islamic world. Akhundzada was born in 1812 (other documents give 1811 and 1814) in the town of Nukha, in the part of Azerbaijan that was annexed by Russia in 1828. [31]

This article is written by Kalantarian:

AHMAD B. AYYUB HAFEZ, 7th-8th/13th-14th Azerbaijani architect, one of the best representatives of the architectural school of Nakjavan. [32]

Grandmaster (talk) 07:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you think by claiming why are we even arguing about this you will present this as if it is settled? The article on Britanica has been written by an Azeri specialist who is also the one who brought the Northern and Southern Azerbaijan claim when no one before was ever using it. But even from the same article we find this: They were referred to as “Tatars” by the Russians; the ethnonym Azerbaijani (azarbayjanli) came into use in the pre-revolutionary decades at first among urban nationalist intellectuals. Only in the Soviet period did it become the official and widely accepted name for this people. Why don't we call the Romans, Italians? And what about the Turkmen? They had a very major role in the foundation of the modern Azerbaijani identity?

And, your second source does not remotely support your claim, you can not support a word when the authors fundamental reason for using it is at the extreme opposite of your claim. Iranian scholars use of Azerbaijani is quite different than yours and you know it, and by now you should have known it with the excessive discussions between Persian and Azeri users on Wikipedia. And this is reason enough that users have even created articles as disanbuigation. They were called Tartar so we should call those people of the era Tartars. It is for this reason that it should be me who asks: why are we even arguing about this ? VartanM (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

A similar - but much more easily handled - issue emerged with articles about Texas. People from Texas as a state of the United States are referred to as "Texans". What most people don't know is that the term for them during the period of the independent Republic of Texas was "Texians". We need a singular moment to say, this is when they became Azeris. With Texas, that moment as simple. With Azerbaijan, not so much. Is that moment Russian annexation? The formation of the ADR? Prehistory? --Golbez (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This is being discussed on another article as well. [33] I don’t think it is worth duplicating the same discussion here. In short, all major encyclopedias use the term Azerbaijani. Also, the article in Britannica was written by the Armenian scholar Ronald Suny. Grandmaster (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

In short, majority of scholars use Tatar and I have provided 32 of them. VartanM (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't know that. We haven't checked most of the sources. Actually, I haven't even checked all the sources that use the term Azerbaijani, as there's no need for that. I just see that all major encyclopedias use the term Azerbaijani, and it is enough for us to do the same. Grandmaster (talk) 06:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Penny encyclopedia

1. In August 1919, the Karabakh National Council entered into a provisional treaty agreement with the Azerbaijani government, recognizing the authority of the Azerbaijan government until the issue of the mountainous part of Karabakh would be settled at the Paris Peace Conference. Despite signing the Agreement, the Azerbaijani government continuously violated the terms of the treaty . In August, 1919, 700 Christian inhabitants of Shusha were massacred by Tartars. British administrator of Karabakh colonel Chatelword didnt empede the discrimination of local Armenians by Tatarian administration of governor Sultanov. The national clashes ended by the terrible massacres in March, 1920, in which the most of Armenians in Shusha town perished. The Parliament in Baku refused even condemn the accomplishers of the massacres in Shusha.
2. In August 1919, the Karabagh National Council entered into a provisional treaty agreement with the Azerbaijani government, recognizing the authority of the Azerbaijan government until the issue of the mountainous part of Karabakh would be settled at the Paris Peace Conference. Despite signing the Agreement, the Azerbaijani government continuously violated the terms of the treaty . The largest Armenian-Azeri ethnic clashes in Shusha took place on March-April 1920. On the night from March 21-22, 1920 when the Azeris celebrated Spring Equinox (Norouz), local Armenian groups organized a surprise attack. However, the effect of suddenness backfired at the Armenians. Azeris infuriated by the attack on their holy day, launched a counteroffensive to the Armenian quarters of Shusha and burned almost the whole Armenian part of the town, forcing the Armenian population to flee. During these clashes thousands of people from both Armenian and Azeris died, more than 7,000 houses were burned and Shusha was virtually cleansed of its Armenian population.

(differences in bold)

• "Karabagh" must be "Karabakh". Andranikpasha 21:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree; unless a source says the official English/transliterated name of the organization back then was Karabagh, I agree it should be changed. Either way, this seems like a really minor issue to war over. That the New England School of Law calls it Karabagh cannot go against our existing principles (and the government's official stance) of using 'Karabakh.' --Golbez 23:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• a source by Wikisource (NYT), other foreign scolars research on Shusha pogrom is deleted. added an Armenian partisan source and OR text by Grandmaster asking also Azeris were killed (any facts?). Andranikpasha 21:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The first version really needs cleanup and NPOVifying, and I want a translation of the source for the last sentence in it. As for the second version, the bit about thousands of Azeris dying needs sourcing, as there's no source and I see no mention of that on the linked article. Also, since there's an attribution of how it started for the second one, unless indicated otherwise we should include that, though it needs NPOVifying and clarification. So in other words, we can combine these two, but I need sources. --Golbez 00:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

you need sources... when a virtual Penny cited we (included Bassenius) should beleave to Grandmaster (despite Bassenius didnt find such citations in Penny), when I cited many foreign sources you need ... sources and NPOVing. All the translations and quotes you can find here Talk:Shusha pogrom (1920). As I dont support what you're doing (trying to do) here I just going out for a while then will look what are the results and what can I do with such a neutrality. Mark if you keep that Armenian source on "Armenian-Azeri clashes" Ill use it as an incedent as I have many other respected Armenian scolars disputting this biased neutrality. Good luck! Andranikpasha 01:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'm reading sources on everything where I have access to them. And I said above that I agreed that the Penny citation was faulty; I don't know why you're attacking my statements when I agree with you. I also don't know why you don't support resolving an edit war, as if it's never resolved then this article will stay blocked until we have a THIRD arbitration, and I don't think anyone wants that. I don't want sources on that talk page; they should be mentioned in this article. I'm not going to hunt sources here; I am not the expert. I am the lay person, I am the reader. So educate me. As for 'the Armenian source', my source is our article on the Shusha pogrom, which has not been editwarred. As for the source, unless you have one that 1) says that is false, or 2) contradicts it, then how can I place your word above it? Can we stop with the ethnic crap here and just try to state the facts of what happened? Believe it or not, but occasionally, an Armenian can be neutral, just like an Azeri can. Get over yourselves. --Golbez 04:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

1. The 19th century also brought significant alterations to the ethnic demographics of the region. Following the invasions from Iran (Persia), Russo-Persian wars and subjection of Karabakh khanate to Russia, many Muslim families emigrated to Iran while many Armenians were induced by the Russian government after the Treaty of Turkmanchay to emigrate from Iran to Karabakh. According to the statistics of 1832, the population of Shusha composed of 762 Armenian and 936 Mohammedan families.
2. The 19th century also brought significant alterations to the ethnic demographics of the region. Following the invasions from Iran (Persia), Russo-Persian wars and subjection of Karabakh khanate to Russia, many Muslim families emigrated to Iran while many Armenians were induced by the Russian government after the Treaty of Turkmanchay to emigrate from Iran to Karabakh. According to the statistics of 1832, the population of Shusha composed of 762 Armenian and 936 Mohammedan families.

• again the same legendary "Penny cyclopedia" is used which seems to be used falsely as Grandmaster never represent any answer.Andranikpasha 21:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Andranikpasha 21:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The Penny Cyclopedia appears to me to be neutral, so unless you have a source countering this, I'm not sure we should remove it. --Golbez 00:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

References

(so we can see the above references)

Comments

Please put in comments on each individual section. --Golbez 23:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Golbez, that the supposed de Jure coat of arm should go has become so obvious that I don't know in what way I could explain that this has to do with the municipality and that the higher government is irrelevant.

I will tell you what is the real problem.

Russian-sponsored Armenian settlement in Karabakh and other parts of Azerbaijan that took place throughout the 19th century.

Virtually every Russo-Turkish war produced new waves of Armenian refugees who resettled in many parts of Russian ruled Caucasus, including Shusha.

Azeris lived in eastern lower quarters, Armenians settled in relatively new western upper quarters of the town.

First, it was the result of increasing tensions between the local Muslim population and Armenian settlers, which significantly increased in numbers throughout the 19th century.

The 19th century also brought significant alterations to the ethnic demographics of the region. Following the invasions from Iran (Persia), Russo-Persian wars and subjection of Karabakh khanate to Russia, many Muslim families emigrated to Iran while many Armenians were induced by the Russian government after the Treaty of Turkmanchay to emigrate from Iran to Karabakh.

Do I need to continue or you've got the mantra? It is not the only article which has this repetition over and over. We have attempted on the arbitration to raises those issues without success.

The discussion above documented that before 1750 Turkic tribes haven't yet penetrated NK and it was exclusively Armenian. Shushi was founded by Panah Khan by forcing Melik Nazar to ceide a piece of land on which Shushi was build. The Armenians who settled in NK during the Russian rules were those who escaped Ebrahim Khan brutalities. We have provided all the official records of population which shows more absolute Tartar increase of population in the whole region.

Shushi was a town and it is a fact that Armenians who were sedentary were more prone to live in towns then the Tartars, the shift of Shushi population had more to do with people way of life then anything.

The same editors have again and again in a repetitious fashion added the term resettlement, settlement, migration etc. which mislead readers as if the Azerbaijani's were living and were a majority in the whole land before the Armenians arrived. When it is not disputed by any reputable and credible scholar that it was the other way around. For centuries Turkic tribes settled in mass but it wasn't until 1750 they started populating significantly the mountainous regions (Armenian plateau). Even in the Ottoman Empire, a Turkic Empire, in Eastern part (part of the Armenian plateau) it wasn't until the eighteenth century that the Turks significantly populated it. As the Turkish historian Bertkay said, Eastern Anatolia was still alien to the Turks.

Also, the changes, like replacing Turkic-speaking Muslims for Azeris. Many Turkmens and other Turkic elements were living there in the 1830, there was still not defined Azerbaijani identity. Dumping its whole Turkic population as Azeris is not accurate.

Atabek also renamed Armenian Tartar clash to Armenian-Azeri clash, it was and is still called the Armenian-Tartar clash, because this population was still not clearly defined and that many Turkic elements were living there. And more, Atabek removed what is not as if in 1905 there was an Azerbaijan.

Not to say that he requests not to remove sources, when he removed Kaufman and several other sources. It is becoming increasingly difficult to continue assuming good faith with Atabek when he hardly really justified his edit. He makes very controversial and obviously unacceptable edits and then defends himself by asking consensus to modify them. At least with Grandmaster, there is some discussion and some possible concessions. VartanM 23:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This is quite beyond Atabek, though, since I've been watching this edit war go on in slow motion for the last week, and now I see it's been going on for at least the last TWO. It was time to stop it. --Golbez 00:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

De Jure Coat of Arms

In order for what is called the "de jure coat of arms" to be included in the article, we need to have evidence that there is currently an active de-jure Shushi Government that uses this coat of arms. If there isn't then it shouldn't be included in the article. Even if there is, it shouldn't be included in the infobox per WP:WEIGHT and instead should be included in a new section describing this de jure government. If there is no evidence of such an entity please remove this coat of arms. Pocopocopocopoco 02:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

We'll get to that when the edit war is resolved. So, help resolve the edit war. --Golbez 04:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it part of the edit war? Pocopocopocopoco 13:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I consider it a separate one, since I'd been involved in trying to clean that up (poorly I admit) while ignoring the fight going on below. --Golbez 19:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Current compromise proposal

Capital

Shusha's fortress was built to serve as the capital of the Karabakh khanate, and the city was one of the cultural centers of South Caucasus after the Russian conquest of the region in first half of the 19th century.

Comments

See my comments above; it appears the sticking point is Azeris say it was founded as the capital city, whereas Armenians say the area was populated before then? --Golbez (talk) 04:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Russian Empire

The Karabakh khanate was eliminated in 1822. During the Russo-Persian War of 1826–1828, the citadel at Shusha held out for several months and never fell. After this Shusha ceased to be a capital of a khanate and instead became an administrative capital of first the Karabakh province (1822-1840) and then of the Shusha district (uyezd) of the Elisabethpol Governorate (1840-1923). Shusha grew and developed, with successive waves of immigrants of both Turkic peoples and especially Armenians, particularly after the Treaty of Turkmenchay when Russian authorities urged many Armenians to migrate from Persia to the region.

What Turkic immigrants? Penny makes it clear, that after subjection of the region to Russia Muslims were emigrating to Iran, while Armenian were immigrating to the region. I think the quote is quite unambiguous. Grandmaster (talk) 10:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I was running on simple math, but now I see something I missed in the reference; sadly I guess this needs more discussion. --Golbez (talk) 20:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments

This is the most accessible reference available to our english-speaking audience, and I think this is portrayed rather neutrally. I wouldn't mind other references, if they could be translated neutrally (since there was astonishingly an argument over the neutrality of a translation earlier) --Golbez (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"Azeri"

I'm inclined, for now, to go with "Tartar" or "Muslim" or what not, until discussions are furthered on the other articles. Our article on the naming appears to make it clear that, for much of history, the term "Azeri" or "Azerbaijani" was used quite different than how it is now, when it was used at all. However, "Turkic-speaking Muslims" sounds clunky; "Muslim" in that case is probably sufficient. Or, if you keep that, say "Armenian Christians". --Golbez (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Golbez, they say Turkic-speaking Mulims because there were many different Turkic-speaking tribes and it was impossible for outsiders to distinguish between them. Also there were other Muslims that didn't speak Turkic for example the Persians and the Kurds. Armenians on the other hand had strong national characteristics developed for centuries and a unique language different from the other Christian nation to the north (Georgia) --VartanM (talk) 08:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

All the Turkic tribes and people in the region were the same people as modern-day Azerbaijanis. No original research, please. Grandmaster (talk) 09:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I have removed two references to "Azerbaijani" used in the context of old population statisitics, and replaced them with "Muslim". Meowy 02:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Penny encyclopedia

1. In August 1919, the Karabakh National Council entered into a provisional treaty agreement with the Azerbaijani government, recognizing the authority of the Azerbaijan government until the issue of the mountainous part of Karabakh would be settled at the Paris Peace Conference. Despite signing the Agreement, the Azerbaijani government continuously violated the terms of the treaty . Ethnic conflict began to erupt in the region. In August 1919, 700 Christian inhabitants of Shusha were massacred by Tartars. The strife culminated in the pogrom of March 1920, in which 20,000 Armenians, most of the Armenian population of Shusha, was killed, and many of the rest forced to flee.

1. The 19th century also brought significant alterations to the ethnic demographics of the region. Following the invasions from Iran (Persia), Russo-Persian wars and subjection of Karabakh khanate to Russia, many Muslim families emigrated to Iran while many Armenians were induced by the Russian government after the Treaty of Turkmanchay to emigrate from Iran to Karabakh. According to the statistics of 1832, the population of Shusha composed of 762 Armenian and 936 Mohammedan families.

Comments

1. I'd like to find a neutral source for the last sentence, but this solves several problems by shunting motive and details off to the main article, and keeping this article purely about Shusha and its history. It may be making it too sterile, though. --Golbez 04:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

1. It has not yet been shown that the Penny Cyclopedia, even considering its age, is either biased or false. --Golbez 04:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

Oh yeah, this is going. The argument over "de jure" and "de facto", and that somehow an illegitimate national government means that a municipal government is also illegitimate, seems utterly illogical to me. A significant government-in-exile would have to exist to disagree with the new CoA, regardless of what's happened in Shusha in the last 20 years, and that has not been shown. The old CoA is out of the template. --Golbez (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with that. As I compromise I would suggest to move both CoA to the body of the article. Grandmaster (talk) 10:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do. --Golbez (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I added back the coat of arms. Again Golbez and VartanM, the old CoA is added for neutrality, because Shusha is part of Nagorno-Karabakh region, officially part of Azerbaijan. If you like, we can discuss here the references or multitude of them saying so. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 08:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Please link me when the Azerbaijani government stated the old CoA was still legitimate. You can, and I yield. I know you cannot. --Golbez (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Decision

I want to put these up within a day, please tell me if there's any glaring inaccuracies. --Golbez (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Tartars (predecessors of modern Azerbaijanis) - wrong. It was the same people as modern day Azerbaijanis, who were called Azerbaijani Tatars by Russians. Saying that they were predecessors is not accurate.
2. The strife culminated in the pogrom of March 1920, in which 20,000 Armenians, most of the Armenian population of Shusha, was killed, and many of the rest forced to flee.

Why did you remove that there was a fighting in the city, which was initiated by the Armenian militants? This is supported even by the Armenian sources. And the number of Armenian casualties is blown out of any proportion, according to de Waal only 500 Armenians died in fighting. Also, linking the article to Shusha pogrom (1920), the title and content of which is still disputed is not correct. Grandmaster (talk) 07:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Because that is handled in the linked article; we don't need that kind of detail here. I'll look for a way to slip a little into it, but the main issue here is its presence in the greater historical context, not an entire section on the pogrom alone. As for the article title, that's not my problem. If it changes, then we can change the link.

As for #1: I'm making an exhausted editorial decision to make January 1 1900 the barrier. Anything after that, "Azeri" is not an issue. Anything before that, I give up. --Golbez (talk) 07:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The linked article has a bunch of POV tags on it, I don't think we should make any reference to it until it is fixed, and repeat the same POV here. As for Azeri, I think we can say that Azerbaijanis were referred to as Azerbaijani Tatars by Russian authorities, and use the term in he historical context, but the words like "predecessors" are wrong. Grandmaster (talk) 08:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

And CoA issue remains unresolved. I proposed to remove both Coas from the infobox down to the main body of the article. Or how about an Rfc on that? Grandmaster (talk) 08:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The CoA issue is resolved to my satisfaction, you are welcome to start any RfC you like, but as it is, there is no reason whatsoever to consider the current CoA illegitimate. --Golbez (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That is your personal opinion, which does not match with mine. I do not consider this issue resolved and will seek dispute mediation. Grandmaster (talk) 09:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The so called "fightings" in Shusha in 1920 didnt supportet by any reliable source the only biased Armenian source says about an attack happened before. This "fightings" pushing seems to be a good example of political denial. All the time massacres/pogroms/genocides took place, the side that never recognized these events calls the mass killings of inhabitants a "suppressed revolt", "fightings" (between soldiers from one side and women, eldman and children from another?), etc. See for example Holocaust denial and Denial of the Armenian Genocide. Much is the same! Hope some day we will stop discuss this... Andranikpasha (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of information

Golbez, did you realize that you just removed the quote [34], which you were insisting upon yourself on another page [35] barely a month ago. These were your words:

• Yes, while saying "officially" part of Azerbaijan may be kludgy, it's the best method that was agreed on, and matches the position of the United Nations.

I am not sure how much you want to persist on the subject of separatism, but in real world, Nagorno-Karabakh is recognized officially as part of Azerbaijan. So please, explain reasons for removal of this quote from the page. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 02:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeez Atabek, ad nauseum much? We get the point, the NKR is unrecognized and its status remains unresolved, but to repeat this in every single post you make in every single Nagorno-Karabakh related article is the definition of insanity: repeating the same thing over and over again, expecting different results. The Azerbaijani government has wound you guys up so badly that Armenians are always automatically assumed to be some dastardly insidious "enemy" with some sort of pernicious agenda out to hurt and destroy others.

Are you certain absolutely certain that it was Armenian artillery fire that killed your puppy during the war or something?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Atabek: The NEXT SENTENCE explains the geopolitical issues, we don't need to hit the reader with a hammer over it. --Golbez (talk) 02:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Some corrections

These parts seems to be uncorrect: "In order to attract Armenian public support, Bolsheviks promised to resolve the issue of the disputed territories, including Karabakh, in favor of Armenia..." Is there reliable sources proving this. Looks like a simple POV, as if Bolsheviks even promised (I know only about a promise by Azerbaijani local communist leaders), its too hard to be sure if they done it to attract Armenian public support.

And "The decision favoring Azerbaijan has been largely possible by a firm position of the then Soviet Azerbaijan leader Nariman Narimanov, who resisted pressures from Stalin to concede Karabakh and Nakhichevan to Armenia." its commonly recognized that Stalin supported Azerbaijani side and surely no any pro-Azeri decision can took place without his agreement.

• "In this century, the dispute was pointedly and cleverly exacerbated by Soviet leader Josef Stalin. Stalin knew that by including the disputed and by then majority Armenian-populated region wholly within the boundaries of the new Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, it would forever remain a sore spot between the two republics that would ensure Moscow’s position as power broker (a divide-and-rule policy behind many border decisions in that region in the 1920s)." Nagorno-Karabakh Searching for a Solution, USIP
• "In 1923, the Nakhichevan region on the border with Iran was made an autonomous republic, and the year after, the Armenian enclave Nagorno-Karabakh was made an autonomous oblast within Azerbaijan. This gave Stalin a better opportunity to controle the area by "divide-and-rule", but it has ruined the relationship between Azerbaijanis and Armenians for still a long time." Centre for Russian Studies, Azerbaijanis
• "By 1930 the USSR, under the leadership of Joseph Stalin, had changed the region’s border and reduced its territory, leaving Nagorno-Karabakh entirely within Azerbaijan. Despite the majority Armenian population, Soviet leaders isolated Nagorno-Karabkh from Armenia partly because the two areas lacked good transportation and communication links with one another." Where is the pressure of Stalin on Narimanov??Nagorno-Karabakh, Encarte Encyclopedia Andranikpasha (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not commonly recognized, it is an opinion of some, and there are other opinions too. There's a large discussion with many quotes in the archive dedicated to this topic. Grandmaster (talk) 11:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, what's not recognized (as there're 2 different "Citation needed" tags)? The opposite quotes is the second problem, for a start we need to have some sources supporting what is represented in the article, and then to review if it is correct to represent only these opinions (especially if as you say there are others). Andranikpasha (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I added some sourced info about what led the conflict in the city and the range of casualty figures. Grandmaster (talk) 07:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Grandmaster the version of revolt is an obvious POV by 3 sources, as it happened during the Armenian-Azerbaijani War, Shusha was a battle territory, it never justifies the mass killings of inhabitants. And most of historical sources dont support the existence of a local revolt, as well as unsourced number of some 500 by modern journalist de Wall. He is a journalist and while writing about number of killed people must cite any sources as the reliable third party sources mark 20-30,000 victims.Andranikpasha (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I can add many more sources that there was a revolt, in fact, you can find that info in every Armenian source as well. So please do not remove sourced info. And de Waal is the author of a critically acclaimed book about the conflict, so removal of sourced info is not justified. Grandmaster (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats just not true, and you know about it. Pls stop editwarring and discuss at first! Andranikpasha (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Shushavian image

Don't know why the image of noble Shushavian removed from the page. The painting by Vereschagin is over 100 years old, the justification provided for removal of it isn't valid. More interesting is the fact that prior attempt [36] to get rid of this image was made by banned User:Artaxiad, so the suspicious edit by this anon IP may not be unrelated. Atabek (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Suspected banned user keeps on targeting Azerbaijani images. The picture of a girl was taken in 1898 and is PD. Grandmaster (talk) 06:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Requestt remains simple - provide original source of the scan, and whole page. I get it, you are saying it is over so many years old, but conveniently fail to mention where it comes from, it did not originate from thin air, or did it?70.21.139.214 (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not uploader of the image. Check Vereshagin's catalogue, it should be there. Alternatively contact the uploader, as the rules require. You should know him very well. Grandmaster (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The IPs are banned User:Azad chai. I rolled back his edits. Grandmaster (talk) 05:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the "Tartar maiden" photograph - I have given it the actual description as appears here: http://www.photomuseum.org.ge/zanis/01_en.htm. That is where the photo appears to have copied from.Meowy 02:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Grandmaster, what is your source for the changed photo caption you have added? Meowy 14:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the correct link to the picture: [37] Grandmaster (talk) 04:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. Thanks. It looks like the same woman in both pictures, though! So maybe the photographer was using her to model the clothing that would visually define the social status of Muslim females in this region - girl, unmarried woman (maiden/virgin) or married woman. Meowy 15:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Meowy, Shusha still is an administrative division of Azerbaijan, even if it is occupied by the Armenian forces. This fact is recognized internationally. Saying that it was in the past is incorrect, saying that Azerbaijan presently has no control over its administrative unit is accurate. Grandmaster (talk) 04:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Shusha is a disputed area, with one side having clear de facto control, and the other clear side clear de jure ownership. We can't just use past-tense for one or the other. Both are present tense - it IS a part of Nagorno-Karabakh, and - based on Azerbaijan's official divisions - it's still a division of Azerbaijan. You can't say it WAS an administrative division of Azerbaijan. That they have no control over it doesn't matter; based on their internal divisions, it's still a division of Azerbaijan. I know you'll probably say, "Should we say every part of China is claimed by Taiwan"? IMO, no, unless the divisions share names (and maybe we do, who knows). But the China issue is much more complex than the NK issue, as de jure ownership has faded over time. It has not in the case of Nagorno-Karabakh. --Golbez (talk) 05:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "clear de jure". And unless an administrative center is actually administering something it cannot seriously be called an administrative center anymore! But such logic is probably less important for those trying to stress political points. At the very least, it must be admitted that the current de-facto status (which is the town's actual, real, physical status) should come before its de-jure status. So I'm going to change the order to reflect that. BTW, Grandmaster reverted (accidentally I guess) a paragraph that I rewrote only to improve its English and which had no actual content change; I have restored that. Meowy 15:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No one is saying its de facto status shouldn't go first. However, its de jure status as a division of Azerbaijan is by no means past-tense, and should not be treated as one. --Golbez (talk) 04:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

But before I started editing it, it's de-facto status came after its de-jure status. Actually, using the same reasoning (that de-facto status should take precidence) the article's primary title should really be Shushi because that is what its population now call it. It's a small difference so I'm not sure if it is worth an argument about, though I wonder if there is a Wikipedia policy on this. I remember, a while back, changes I made to the administrative divisions of the Turkish_Republic_of_Northern_Cyprus being repeatedly reverted. I wanted the entry to have the actual place names in use now, with their original Greek names taking second place. Others editors wanted only the Greek names to appear. Checking the article again, I see that now it is only the current Turkish names that appear. Meowy 16:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Armenian Settlers

I think it is inaccurate to portray Armenians as settlers and Azeris as natives in the early 20th century section. While this is in line with Azerbaijan's official position, most, if not all, Armenians would disagree. Armenians cite the numerous monestaries as evidence of their continual presence. Whether these are Albanian or Armenian is irrelevant, but the fact that both sides claim them is. There is plenty of evidence that Armenians migrated to the region in the 19th centry, however, the way the section is phrased makes it seem as though all Armenians were new to the region which is a dubious claim at best. I recommend replacing "and Armenian settlers, which significantly increased in numbers throughout the 19th century." with "and Armenians, whose numbers increased throughout the 19th centru as a result of Russian resettlement policies." E10ddie (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

And of course, go back far enough and it is the Azeri Tartars who are the settlers! Regarding the population statistics - it is the case that a large part of the Muslim population in Karabagh practiced a migratory lifestyle - they lived in the plains during winter and moved with their flocks to the mountains in summer. I don't know how those population statistics reflect that (it might depend on when in the year the population census was held). Meowy 16:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Shosh

I added a tag to this one, as Brokgauz encyclopedia link isn't working now. Also, no source for "Shosh" was provided.Atabəy (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, you failed to run any search on this on any database including Google books?

Shushi or Shusha (for your liking) is indeed derived from Armenian Shosh and Persian Sus (or Susa). Its origin is probably Akkadian. Shusha for the place is the reuse from Susa in Elam. See E.J. Brill's First Encyclopaedia of Islam

The village nearby Shushi was probably renamed Shosh just after 1604 in honor of the new Julfa built in what was named the country of Shosh or city, Persian Sus or Susa (Isfahan).

Jamal Javanshir Qarabaghi writes about Shosh village nearby Shoushi in his two chronicles. Panahabad was the name of the founded town, it was renamed 'Shusha' after Qarabaghi wrote about the town. So definitely Shosh village name existed not only prior to the naming of the city, but also prior to the city’s foundation. The village was also called Shosh Kend, so definitely for the Safavid Turkic speaking people it had some geographic significance. It is not a coincidence that Susa and Shosh refers to the same thing (see above), it was named the same thing as the village, and the difference in name is just because the Persian name was used. Besides, when the city was renamed it expanded from its population to touch a section of the already existing village.

It was already documented here on Wikipedia that the city was founded by Panah-Ali khan Javanshir after that the Melik had given him a small region in Artsakh in the middle of the Armenian inhabited region to build his fortress there, because of its rocky nature and altitude making it difficult to penetrate. - Fedayee (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Protected

This slow-motion edit war ends. It's time to stop mindlessly rolling back and undoing and it's time to discuss. --Golbez (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Typo in The Penny Cyclopædia: Shusha demographics

This article boasts a preposterous claim that "Shusha grew and developed, with successive waves of immigrants, particularly Armenians following the Treaty of Turkmenchay when Russian authorities urged many Armenians to migrate from Persia to the region." That is what Azerbaijani nationalists always try to shove up - that Armenians of Karabakh were ostensibly not native but came from Persia. This is supported by an article from The Penny Cyclopædia that apparently contains a typo. Cyclopædia says that the Karabakh province had 13,965 Mohammedan and 1491 Armenian families; at the same time it mentions that 762 families of Armenians and 936 Mohammedan families lived in Shusha in the beginning of the 19th cent. How is that possible? This means that the entire Karabakh province - with its 200+ Armenian settlements - had only slightly more than 700 Armenian families, and one-half of all those families lived in one town?!! This is totally impossible, and contradicts to all contemporaneous demographic and geographic accounts. Please consult demographic data in "Russia and the Armenians of Transcaucasia, 1797-1889: A Documentary Record. Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers. 1998" and "Armenians and Russia, 1626-1796: A Documentary Record. Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers, 2001." That must be a typo: instead of 1491, Penny Cyclopædia apparently intended to say 14910 families. This is an old text, poorly typed, so typos in such materials are abundant. Or, it was poorly scanned. I am removing this passage until explanation and other more reliable sources become available, and suggest we do not use Penny for Karabakh-related articles. Capasitor (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

What you do is called original research. We just quote the sources, we do not analyze them and do not make our own interpretations. So I restored the deleted info. Please do not remove sourced info just because you disagree with it. Grandmaster (talk) 06:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

A disturbing statement that illustrates Grandmaster's attitudes to Wikipedia. An editor has a primary duty not to add material he or she knows or suspects contains inaccurate information. The points made by Capasitor clearly indicate a probable serious error with the source. Common sense alone would indicate it. I for one know that I have never added material to any article that I know or suspect to be false. Nor would I ever do that sort of thing, even if it were to serve some sort of "greater good". Grandmaster seems to indicate he regularly acts otherwise. I question Grandmaster's moral suitability to be editing articles. Meowy 17:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The survey, conducted in 1823 by State Counselor Mogilevskii and Colonel Ermolov II - which cited in this article - provides numbers for Armenians in the Armenian districts of the Karabakh Khanate before the Armenian migration from Persia. The number is 30,850 Armenians. The survey also shows that all these Armenians compactly lived in the highland portion of Karabakh. The survey began in early 1823 and was completed on 17 April of that same year. Its more than 300 pages recorded both the Armenian and Muslim population by villages and tax assessments. It noted that the district of Khachen had twelve Armenian villages and no Tatar villages; Jalapert had eight Armenian villages and no Tatar villages; Dizak had fourteen Armenian villages and one Tatar village; Gulistan had two Armenian and five Tatar villages; and Varanda had twenty-three Armenian villages and one Tatar village. Thus the five mountainous districts which constituted the five (khamse) Armenian melikdoms, had an overwhelming Armenian population before 1828. Plus, Penny Cyclopedia contradicts itself - when it quotes the laughable number of 1491 Armenian families, it tries to explain the reduction of Muslim population but curiously shows that there were was 10 times more Muslims than Armenians. It must be a typo. Your statement that someone can just refer to ANY source, regardless of its validity or quality, is ridiculous and contradicts Wiki guidelines. Capasitor (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

...plus the Penny says that Armenians were "induced" to migrate to Karabakh; it stops short of making the claim the Armenians actually did emigrate. Capasitor (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Why do we need to use this old encyclopedia as a source? Its text says "according to the official returns of 1832" - surely it would be possible to get the figures directly from those official returns. Meowy 17:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Capasitor, can I see a quote from Mogilevskii and Ermolov, in the language of the original? Thanks. As for pennycyclopedia, it is a good source, which provides contemporary statistics. I see no reason why we should not use it. And keep your OR's out of wiki, the rules do not allow that. You all know the rules, see WP:V: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Grandmaster (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Above, Grandmaster said, "We just quote the sources, we do not analyze them and do not make our own interpretations." That's not true. We have to analyze them. For example, if a source said the sky was purple, or that 2 + 2 = 5, would we just print it? No. We are allowed to discard sources that are demonstrably wrong. However, unless you can find another source refuting what this one said - since the population of Karabakh isn't exactly common knowledge, like the color of the sky - we have to accept it at face value. That is to say, we can't demonstrate it's wrong without other information. --Golbez (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The 1823 “Описание Карабахской Провинции ...” (Description of the Karabakh Province …) by Ermolov et al that perplexed Grandmaster represents a series of tables; it is not a continuous text and its direct replication here is physically impossible. However, this document has been extensively discussed in the works of the reputable American scholar George Bournoutian. Here is a link to an article where he criticizes the presently-defunct academic Audrey Alstadt’s frivolous and politically motivated use of statistical data: [38]

Also, George Bournoutian writes in his “History of Qarabagh: An Annotated Translation of Mirza Jamal Javanshir Qarabaghi's Tarikh-E Qarabagh”:

Page 18: "In 1823, after the return of those had fled the region, the Armenian population had increased to just a third of the total inhabitants [of territories controlled by the Karabakh Khanate]. The overwhelming majority of the Qarabagh Armenians, however, as Mirza Jamal’s text indicated, lived in the five mountainous districts. Thus one-third of the population of Qarabagh (Armenians) lived in one-third of the territory of the former khanate. In that mountainous territory, the Armenians constituted an overwhelming majority of the population. In the remaining two-thirds, however, the Turkic groups constituted the majority.”

Bournoutian, an American with Persian roots, is an unquestionable authority on the late medieval history of the Caucasus, and there are no academics who ever doubted his expertise. So, I include his works as a reference as well. Capasitor (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Capasitor, this has been covered here. What you report is not original research, it was already presented here which shows that either Penny mistyped it or compared the number of Armenian families with the Muslim population. Check here, roll down until MarshallBagramyan's reply. You'll see that according the official statistics, there was more Tartar settlement than Armenian, in a period of 13 years, Tatar population more than doubled. It's also surprising that Grandmaster accuses you of OR, since if Penny figures were right, it'll support a depopulation and not resettlement of Armenians. See here Marshall's second reply, you'll see even Justin McCarthy rejecting the myth of resettlement. If you scroll down, you'll see Vartan's long replies and sourced information on how Shushi was built. The Armenians who ever settled in NK were those who returned after Ebrahim Khan's brutal attacks to get rid of them. They converted and assimilated by force and several others escaped. [39] In the highlands of K, only in Shushi was there Muslim majority. This was discussed but the relevant changes were never done, because the result would be edit warring, some here who I will not name own this article.

Melik chah naszer, prince arménien, lui céda un territoire sur le bords du Karkar, où il construit le for Chouchi. [40]

Melik Chah Naszer, Armenian prince ceded him a territory on the edges of Karkar, where he build the fortress of Shushi.

That's why Shushi's Muslim majority could not have been a representation of the rest of the highlands of K, because it was a piece of land ceded by the Melik in the middle of a region inhabited by Armenians.

Also, it was discussed that any claim of resettlement in this article would be POV pushing, because it is irrelevant and that the statistics shows that only in Shushi the Tartar population declined. And it was even explained why, it was due to the way of life of the sedentary Armenian population in comparison to he nomadic Tartar tribes. Shushi was a town, Armenians were urban people so slowly they outnumbered the Tatars who left the town because living in a town did not correspond with their way of life. When the Tartar population became more sedentary they preferred to remain in the lowland rather than coming back in the summer. - Fedayee (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I knew it was Bournoutian. Can we see these statistics from a neutral source, preferably in the language of the original? And Fedayee, why would Azerbaijani population of Shusha decline due to nomadic life? If these people lived in the city, they were definitely not nomads, same as population of other large cities in Azerbaijan, such as Ganja, Shemakha, etc. Makes no sense. Clearly this was due to emigration of Muslim population to Iran, as penny writes. Grandmaster (talk) 05:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Not only is Bournoutian neutral, but even pro-Azeri authors have used him. The official Russian figures were already provided, and besides, Penny says 'families' for Armenians, and not for the Tatars. So it can be interpreted both ways, and while their figures for the Muslims are indeed the same as those from the official statistics, those for the Armenians are not. This was brought up in more than one occasion. As for your question, it was already answered many times, the city was build as a fortress for the Khan, his subjects and his army. It was sustained by the Khan, but after Ebrahim died, the Muslim population declined. Elsewhere, like in Gandzak a sedentary way of life was easier to sustain than in the Armenian plateau, for the Tatars it was better to return to the plateau only in summer while Armenians had adapted to live this way for centuries. VartanM (talk) 09:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

This is like a sick joke: when it comes to his mis-typed and "penny"-worth "cyclopedia"Grandmaster says that any source is good, but when a well-published Western academic speaks up to defend what is commonsense anyway, Grandmaster feels nervous. Grandmaster shows utter disrespect of Wikipedia, and his attitude is a cause of unnecessary re-editing. Capasitor (talk) 15:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I also added a neutral formaula about the position of Shusha as being "part" of Azerbaijan. Capasitor (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Largest town

I think this claim should be removed:

By the second half of the 19th century Shusha had became the largest town in the Karabakh region and the second largest town in the Caucasus after Tbilisi

While Shusha was more populous than Elizavetpol, it certainly had less population than Baku. According to Brokhaus, the population of Elizavetpol was in 1892 was 25758, [41] while the population of Baku was 45679, [42] and in 1903 207913: [43] At that time Shusha had 30,000 population. As for the claim about Shusha being the largest town in Karabakh, it was in fact the only town in Karabakh, others were just villages. Grandmaster 06:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)