Talk:Shusha/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Shusha coins

I have deleted an "external image" link and associated caption (Silver abbasi or panahabadi in the name of Fat′h-Ali Shah Qajar, Mint of Panahabad (Shusha)...). [1]. This was because the link is dead, and I doubt a link to a commercial website selling coins would be acceptable on Wikipedia even if it were not dead. But some content on these coins would be useful and interesting to have in the article, so I am mentioning the deletion here in the hope that someone who knows the subject and has sources can write this content. Thanks. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

History of Shusha

The history section is not organised in chronological order, but rather in accordance with credibility of the sources that mention the city's foundation. The wording "Islamic and Soviet sources" is not acceptable; it is like saying "Christian and American sources". In fact, these are neither Islamic, nor Soviet (and incidentally, Brockhaus does not fall under either definition); these are tertiary sources that have more weight according to Wikipedia rules than primary ones. Most available tertiary sources agree that the city was founded in 1752. Among the sources claiming its mediaeval existence only Bournoutian may be accepted; the rest are either primary or partisan, hence this version is listed second.

I kept the spelling from Chelebi, but a quote from the Ter Manuel Gospel mentioning the spelling "Shushi" is yet to be provided.

I do not understand your continuous deletion of the Hajibeyov family photo whose life in Shusha for several generations is a well-attested historical fact. Your claim that the family "has nothing to do with Shusha" and replacing it with the photograph of a person whose connection to Shusha is not attested anywhere is also beyond my understanding. Parishan (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It is you who needs to respect the weight of the article. Sources claiming the city was founded in 1752 are only credible in your imagination.

via WP:WPNOTRS:

Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere.

This is exactly what my sources are. Documents from the time period, and recordings of people (mostly neutral) alive at the time, such as Grigory Potemkin, Heraclius II of Georgia, Alexander Suvorov, Petr Ivanovich Panin, Avan Yuzbashi, etc.. There are many others than Bournoutian that support a pre 1752 city.

Where as the rule also says...

Reputable tertiary sources, such as lower-level textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited. However, although Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources, Wikipedia employs no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy. Thus Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose.

All three of your sources are encyclopedias. So secondary sources come before your admitted tertiary sources. How are the Soviet and Islam encyclopedias in any way credible? The Soviet volume was written by a government, one famous for censorship no less, not historians, and is from the late 20th century, when the Kremlin was supportive of Azerbaijan over Armenia. The Islam encyclopedia is even more laughable, it mostly focuses on Arabia, and Artsakh and Shushi are mentioned briefly and are a very small after thought. An Islam academic would have poor knowledge of Shushi and is not a reliable source.

The source for the Gospel says it is mentioned as Shushi. All sources in the article point to that it was always called Shushi before the Persian invasion.

Hajibeyov is not from Shushi, putting him in this article is like putting a picture of The Beatles visiting Dublin under a cultural life section of it. If you think Manukian is not attested to the city anywhere, despite me putting a source, you should take a look at this too. --Steverci (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

You cannot present as a fact something that is only claimed by some of the sources. Especially considering that most of those sources are primary ones. And deletion of picture of Hajibeyov, one of the most prominent people hailning from the town is not acceptable. Also, Encyclopedia of Islam is not an "Islamic source". It is written by the best academics from all over the world. Please reach a consensus before making such substantial changes. Grandmaster 22:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

A WP:PRIMARY would be something like a journal that Potemkin or Suvorov wrote, or the gospel in itself. A WP:SECONDARY source is an academic book written by a separate author (which is what the pre-1752 sources are). These sources are more fact than encyclopedias written by politicians with the intention of diminishing Armenian presence or promoting Muslim presence. He doesn't hail from the town, he is from Agjabadi. --Steverci (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Steverci, I suggest that you clarify for yourself what a primary, a secondary and a tertiary source is, according to Wikipedia. "Grigory Potemkin, Heraclius II of Georgia, Alexander Suvorov, Petr Ivanovich Panin, Avan Yuzbashi" are all primary sources, that is, what these authors wrote is based on their first-hand accounts, since most of them were describing contemporary events which they were involved in. Needless to say, these sources do not qualify as academic. A secondary source would be a reliable academic work analysing data from a primary source, and none of the authors you describe conform to that.

Encyclopaedia of Islam has nothing to do with religion; it is a serious publication that specialises on the regions historically belonging to the Islamic realm, and that includes Karabakh as well. Most contributors are reputable scholars from the West, hence your classification of this source as "Islamic" simply shows your appalling unawareness of what constitutes a reliable source. This is even more evident from the ridiculous statement about "encyclopaedias being written by politicians" which does not belong in Wikipedia, to put it softly.

The Hajibeyov family is from Shusha, and so is Uzeyir Hajibeyov who simply happened to be born while the family was vacationing in their summer estate in Aghjabadi. His father was the secretary of the daughter of the last khan of Karabakh and his maternal grandfather was her foster-brother who grew up in the khan's household in Shusha. Uzeyir Hajibeyov's older brother Zulgufar, younger brother Jeyhun and cousin Soltan were all born in Shusha as well. A little research does not hurt before making bold statements. This is a family with longstanding roots in Shusha, incomparible to Manukian's disputed birth in this city. Parishan (talk) 02:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

And primary sources most certainly referred to the village of the same name, not the town. But since those are primary source, they need a reliable secondary one for interpretation. As for the rest, I totally agree with Parishan. There is a very long discussion in the archives about this matter. So the present version represents a sort of a comprimise, which you cannot simply overturn. Grandmaster 09:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Once again, as I just linked, a primary source would be an autobiography any of them wrote. It is an artifact, a document, a recording, or other source of information that was created at the time under study. If the Gospel or letters themselves were put for references, then they would be primary. But they are not used as sources, multiple books analyzing them are used instead. Bournoutian, Baratov, Hakobian, Ulubabyan, Tsagareli, Airapetov, Khachikyan, Miroslav Jovanovic, MA Kolerov, Bruce Manning, Paul Chaisty, Barkhudariants and Ashkharhi have all written books analyzing the Gospel attesting to 15th century Shushi and the written accounts of SHushi pre-1752. They are secondary sources.

It does not matter if you think the encyclopaedia is "written by the best academics from all over the world", because it fails Wikipedia:Significant coverage and falls under Wikipedia:Independent sources and Wikipedia:Trivial mentions. Shushi is only mentioned briefly in a book that hardly discusses anything about the subject. There is no real interest in the city, and it would be like using putting the Encyclopedia of Christianity as a source for the spread of Islam above Islamic sources. And has already been said, encyclopedias are tertiary sources, and always come behind secondary sources, so it's proposed reliability isn't even really up for debate.

Funny Parishan that you accuse me of don't doing research for bold claims (even though I just stated facts) and yet you boldly claimed Manukian was only from Kapan. It doesn't matter what his father and grandfather did because this isn't about them and they aren't even in the picture. In fact I did some research and found out the family is actually from Dagestan and he only lived in Shushi until he was about 14 (and wasn't even born there), whereas Manukian attended diocesan school until he was 22. As an individual he has more history in the town. --Steverci (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Accounts of Heraclius of Georgia, Potemkin and Suvorov are considered primary sources, because the authors were neither analysts, nor researchers. With regards to the Gospel, most of the sources you listed (Ulubabyan, Kolerov, etc.) are of questionable credibility. Baratov is a film director; how can he even serve as a source? Other than him, I see only four secondary sources listed, all published in Yerevan (therefore need to be checked for neutrality) and in the Armenian language, so the appearance of "Shushi" as a term is not surprising - that is the only toponym used in Armenian. Furthermore, quotations are needed to establish whether the authors actually meant Shusha or the village of Shushikend ("Shosh" in Armenian) located nearby where most of the original Armenian population of Shusha hailed from.

The fact that the Encyclopaedia of Islam was written by Western academics is not "what I think". If you doubt that, I suggest you examine the list of the editorial board of the encyclopaedia. Just for future reference: I generally have no habit of bringing "what I think" into a Wikipedia discussion, unlike users who have never seen the Encyclopaedia of Islam, yet take liberties in stating whether it "has interest" in certain facts or not, that it is "written by politicians" and that it is "an Islamic source". May I just warn you, Steverci, that by making such statements and pursuing an aggressive policy of reverting edits in every article that you contribute to, in fact, you are casting shadow on your own good faith. What is known is that, in the absence of serious secondary sources, Encyclopaedia of Islam, along with Brockhaus & Efron and the Great Soviet Encyclopaedia, is definitely more reliable than Ulubabyan, Baratov or Heraclius II.

You did not "just state facts". Your claim that the Hajibeyov family "has nothing to do with Shusha" is fallacious all around. Everyone in the photo that you removed is directly linked to Shusha and the photo itself was taken in Shusha. Their origins may trace their history back to Dagestan, but "origin" can mean ten-fifteen generations ago, and has nothing to do with the well-established presence of this family in the city at the time when the photograph was made. In fact, none of Hajibeyov's immediate relatives were born in Dagestan, and it is known that his father, his grandfather, his mother (pictured), and his brothers (both pictured) were born in Shusha. Until the Karabakh War, the Hajibeyov mansion in Shusha was a national museum. This family made a profound contribution to the culture of the city. How is this comparable to Manukian's marginal and obscure presence in Shusha for the duration of his studies? Parishan (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I think Steverci does not understand what Encyclopaedia of Islam is. "It is an encyclopedia about the Islamic world, not a Muslim or an Islamic encyclopedia". It is an important distinction, as it is a third party source, written by the best western experts in their fields of studies, unlike the sources that Steverci proposes as secondary, all which have a strong pro-Armenian bias. Preference should be given to third party sources, which are in a short supply for this topic, unfortunately. WP:SOURCE holds: Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. EI and other cyclopedias is the best that we have in terms of being third party, reliable and with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Grandmaster 20:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter how awesome you think the Encyclopaedia of Islam is, because it's still a tertiary source and always comes behind secondary sources (which Parishan just admitted there are four of), so there's no point in further discussing it. Even if these people are enormous experts on all history, that hurts their reliability for specific cases like this, because Shushi falls under Wikipedia:Trivial mentions in the encyclopaedia.

George A. Bournoutian is an extremely reliable source because he is an expert in this field. He has taught in most of the Ivy League universities and several other colleges, so there is no reason to doubt his credibility. He is the most qualified source here. The particular book Armenians and Russia, 1626–1796: A Documentary Record was published in the United States in English by Mazda Publishers, not Armenia as you claim. There's no reason to question neutrality, you are doing so only because he is an Armenian. Armenian sources naturally focus the most on Armenian history. You need to give a specific reason why his work is unreliable other than his nationality, otherwise it's your good faith that must be questioned. He is not a blacklisted author on Wikipedia, so you need to prove why he is unreliable. And again, most of the best universities in the world will disagree with you.

Also, Hajibeyov simply cannot be put here due to WP:WEIGHT for multiple reasons. Azeris were the minority and Armenians were the majority for decades up to 1915, so this photo is inaccurate. Same reason why Aram Khachaturian can't be put in the Tbilisi article, even though Armenians were about as large of a minority and held all higher up positions in the city at the time. Another reason is that the ratio of Armenian and Azeri pictures is uneven in favor of the former, so this photo needs to be removed one way or the other.--Steverci (talk) 02:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I "admitted" to there being four sources in light of having doubts about them being reliable and specified very clearly that they need a reliability check. Tertiary sources are acceptable sources in the absence of reliable or substantiated secondary ones, so I would ask you to please stop portraying them as something piddling and inconsequent.

I did not claim that Bournoutian was published in Armenia, nor did I question his reliability, so all those revelations on your part were unnecessary. I simply stated that his is a minority view, since most sources (including secondary ones like Raffi) state that the city was founded in 1752. I wish you were as attentive in reading what other users write on talkpages as you are in reverting articles.

The WP:WEIGHT rule is irrelevant here. 14,000 Armenians vs. 11,000 Azeris is not such big of a difference for that rule to apply, especially for a city that was the capital of an Azeri state. I personally have no objection against Aram Khachaturian's photo appearing on the Tbilisi article. Parishan (talk) 08:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, WP:WEIGHT is not applicable here, as it applies to points of view, and not historical persons. Hajibeyov is probably the most prominent person who hailed from this town, so I see no reason for removal of his picture. As for the tertiary sources, the rules do not prohibit their use, and in absence of a sufficient quantity of reliable secondary sources they should be fine to use. Grandmaster 19:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Shusha (Shushi)

Discuss, children. --Golbez (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Golbez! May 21, 1843 along with the other arms of the Caspian region approved the emblem of the Karabakh District (ORIGINALLY NAME - ПСЗ, т.XVIII, №17061, сенатский от 26.07.1843). Historical and original coat of arms of the city of Shusha looks like this: [2], [3]. In the upper half of the shield in a golden field of the coat of arms of the Caspian region; at the bottom, in a green field, galloping gold horse with the Asian saddles and bridles; the lower part of the shield shows that the county bred breed great horses (Karabakh), curry Asian saddles and bridles. This coat of arms can be seen on the coat of arms of the city of Derbent - [4] - The official emblem of the city of Shusha of Azerbaijan approved by the President and published on the official website of the President Library of the Republic of Azerbaijan. You can read and load this page (PAGE NUMBER 19) - [5]. Farid (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Cool. Why didn't you present this before edit warring?

Also, I wasn't aware national governments cared about coats of arms. I'm not saying this can't be the coat of arms, far from, as it's the only one we've been supplied sourcing on. But if we had sourcing that the local population had chosen their own coat of arms, then would that receive precedence? --Golbez (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

My Brother and Dear Mr. Golbez, coat of arms that I have shown you is a historical and original, just the city of Shusha is under occupation and those who live in this city the Armenians do not want to live under our coat of arms and came up with a new version. But new does not mean the original, brother. I showed you the coat of arms which is over 200 years old! Farid (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, exactly. The people of the *city* chose a new coat of arms for the *city*. Being original doesn't mean current, and from what I can gather, that probably hasn't been the coat of arms for 25 years. --Golbez (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Многоуважаемый господин Ymblanter, наверху я предоставил все официальные ссылки, даже показал сайт Библиотеки Президента АР - чтобы вы удостоверились, что я вставлял в статью оригинальный герб и что я не занимаюсь вандализмом. Знаете, для меня не проблема доказать что либо, у меня есть все гербы всех исторических городов АР. Прошу далее не препятствовать моему редактированию. Если можете, будьте более нейтральным. Farid (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Keete 37: Я этот вопрос обсуждал когда-то, даже отправлял имэйл Исполнительной власти Шуши, но они не ответили. Проблема в том, что этот герб, видимо, не является действующим гербом Шуши, он был принят в 19-м веке и с тех пор не понятно, какой у него сейчас статус. Сайт азербайджанской Исполнительной власти Шуши не использует этот герб как официальный. Brandmeister^talk 16:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

may I remind y'all that this is the English wikipedia --Golbez (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Golbez and Mr. Brandmeister! I ask you to look at this photo - [6] and this [7] This photos confirms my words, that the emblem of the city of Shusha is still used by the Azerbaijani community of the city of Shusha in all meetings.Farid (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I was able to trace both photos to this from Azerbaijan State Telegraph Agency. There the coa is displayed in the Nagorno-Karabakh Chapter of Azerbaijani Community of Azerbaijan (Azərbaycan Respublikası Dağlıq Qarabağ Bölgəsinin Azərbaycanlı İcması). Brandmeister^talk 19:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Brandmeister Because members of this organization from the city of Shusha, you asked me that whether the historical coat of arms used at the present time. I have to do this, you show these two pictures. Shusha is the historical capital of the entire Karabakh. I do not understand, is so hard to insert in the article, this coat of arms? What's stopping you do it? You still are mixed feelings about the originality of this emblem? Farid (talk) 19:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd personally support the inclusion on that basis, unless there are no major objections from other editors. Brandmeister^talk 19:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

My friend Mr. Brandmeister, you know, there's an objection can only be from the Armenian side on the basis of mentality or national feelings, which are not acceptable to the true and neutral Wikipedia. You want to get the evidence, I have shown you this evidence. This coat of arms, and in addition, Shusha de jure Azerbaijani town. Let based on legal principles and not on emotions and the like. Farid (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

just to remind you that Armenians are perfectly eligible to edit Wikipedia and give their opinions.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Mr Ymblanter, of course, the Armenians have equal rights with Azerbaijanis, but I am sorry for my arrogance, but you as a user do not have a neutral position on this issue, you probably work on emotions and feelings. I showed you all the necessary evidence, what you still stops? Maybe your one-sided sympathy? Farid (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

First, you have no basis to say that I am not neutral. My position in the dispute is that there should be no edit-warring, and you were the only user who edit-warred. Second, I am not sure whether you noticed that the page has been protected from editing, so that there is no way I can edit it (even if I wanted to).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Mr Ymblanter, First I had previously apologized for my arrogance, if you noticed. Secondly you do not support my party on the question of the emblem, it means you support the Armenian side. There can not be such that the user is maintained once the two sides. For my part, all the evidence presented to you, what other evidence there? I'll send the site of the President of the library and render photos sitting where the head of the Karabakh community with the emblem of Shushi. Is not that proof? Why accept and recognize the most important truth to you so hard? I say that the Armenians do not like Azerbaijani version of the coat of arms of the city of Shusha, because we have two warring countries. But you can on the information section of the article to insert just two arms - the left and the right insert Azerbaijani Armenian version (or vice versa). But to support only one side is wrong. Farid (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

What you say is incorrect. I understand that in your universe the whole world is divided into those who supports Armenians and those who supports Azeris, but, well, outside Trans-Caucasia there are other colors as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Mr Ymblanter, Please, tell only one thing - you support the Armenian version of the coat of arms or Azerbaijan? Other is not important, because all that is needed to prove I have already proved. Farid (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for intruding, but we can have this coat of arms just in the history section, for example. Especially since it was adopted in the 19th century. Brandmeister^talk 20:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Brandmeister, the coat of arms was adopted in the 19th century, but it is now urgent and used at meetings, in speeches communities of Karabakh. You see, Shusha today de facto occupied the city and Azerbaijan does not have the ability to use the coat of arms in the Town Hall of the city of Shusha. But Baku has center Karabakh communities are engaged in the affairs and problems of Azerbaijanis from Shusha. This coat of arms that I showed you a very urgent and I beg you to be very neutral. I wrote at the top that can be used directly two coats of arms in the article, one for the Armenians, and the other for the Azerbaijanis. Farid (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd support that option as well, with the relevant footnote. However I'm not sure whether Template:Infobox settlement supports two coats of arms, this should be checked. Brandmeister^talk 20:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the best solution is to put two coat of arms side by side and add relevant footnote explaining their use. I support Farid and Brandmeister on their last comment. Thanks. --KHE'O (talk) 11:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The above would seem to be an OK solution, except the proposal is to have it in the infobox, not just in the article. I don't think a sustainable argument could be presented for not having the historical one in the article. I think the infobox does support two images - I've seen examples of it, but they are always images of flags/motifs/coats-of-arms that are in current use. Are there other incidences of infoboxes containing emblems that are historical rather than in current use? Given that the historical one has been rejected by the current administrators and population (probably because the flames part expresses a linkage to Baku), I think it should not be in the infobox unless there is Wikipedia policy or habit that says it is OK for these infoboxes to have historical or obsolete symbols as well as current ones. A side point - as has been pointed out, the emblem is very similar to that for Derbent. Were these emblems mass-designed in the 19th century as part of a large group, with just minor changes to be bottom field for each location. Such a manufactured "coat-of-arms" suggests minimal or no input from the actual communities. How real a coat-of-arms is it? Is there evidence of the historical one being used in practice in the city that it purports to have been the coat-of-arms of. Municipal letter headings, for example? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The upper part denotes the governorate or an equivalent administrative division (this is why it is the same as in Derbent; the lower part pertains to the city, but most of the coats of arms were designed in Saint Petersburg without much input from the locals.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 May 2016

Hi. Can someone add this source to a separate ==Sources== section under the ==References== section down below? There are multiple ref-harv inline references in this article (Fisher et al., 1991), but the source itself was lacking on the article. Here it is ----> * Fisher, William Bayne; Avery, P.; Hambly, G. R. G; Melville, C. (1991). The Cambridge History of Iran. Vol. 7. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521200954. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Thanks. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 05:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Unavailable references

This article needs an urgent update. Most references are not available (I am not talking about is validity for now) anymore. The links are either broken or the source is not found. I don't get why people keep adding the claims that don't have any available source. I hope it gets solved in an unbiased way.

--Shamil55 (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Shusha. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019084130/http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/Dokumenty/Kavkaz/Butkov1/pril2.htm to http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/Dokumenty/Kavkaz/Butkov1/pril2.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311021034/http://www.iranica.com/articles/v10f3/v10f372.html to http://www.iranica.com/articles/v10f3/v10f372.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901225059/http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/publication.cfm?program=CORE&ctype=paper&item_id=124 to http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/publication.cfm?program=CORE&ctype=paper&item_id=124

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Stepanakert (Степанакерт) J-38-010.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

In the lead: de facto first, de jure second

In my opinion, the facts on the ground (the de facto situation) ought to be stated first. The de jure situation can then be stated. Another editor disagres and has been reversing this position. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

See Kalbajar, Lachin, Martakert, Khojavend (town), Khojaly (village), Askeran and how they're formatted. You've already opened a discussion about this in another page, which you have failed to respond to. Shusha's de facto situation is currently disputed anyway. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 13:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

That amounts to WP:OtherStuff. Please provide proof of a rule / policy that states that de jure ought to be stated before de facto in the lead. When the situation in Shusha / Shushi is confirmed by reliable sources, I would be happy to reverse the order per my opinion above. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2020

78.167.63.173 (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The English translation of the source about the ancient city of Şuşa is full of preposterous lies. You are kindly requested to stay loyal to the Azerbaijani version of the source.

Please point to reliable sources, you can request changes on the form "Please change X to Y". – Thjarkur (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Please change the title Shusha into Şuşa RocketKnightX (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The English name is Shusha.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Why was the Armenian name removed?

The city of Shusha is known as Shushi in Armenian and was part of the Artsakh Republic until today. As a peace deal has not been formally signed, hypothetically the city could find itself as part of Armenia. It is incorrect to deny the history and name given to this city by the Armenian people due to Azeri chauvinism and pressure.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsobol0513 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2020

Change "administerd" to "administered" in the last paragraph before the fold. AvrahamHerschel (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Done. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 18:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Primary Source

@Laurel Lodged: "what's 1 more primary source in an article replete with primary sources?" amounts to WP:OTHERSTUFF. By assuming WP:GOODFAITH, I'm asking you to revert your edit. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 16:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

So you're cool with me deleting all primary sources in the article? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

As long as you know what a primary source is, then sure. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 16:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I've moved it to the 2020 war section, as it seems UNDUE in the lead. We can re-add it to the lead at a later point if there are secondary sources saying that the damage was significant and will have a lasting effect on the city. Jr8825 • Talk 17:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

As a test of the commitment of @CuriousGolden:to the deletion of primary sources, I deleted one such primary source. It's a video produced by the Azeri Ministry of Defence, used in support of a claim by the same Ministry of Defece. As it happens, the claim is probably true. But that's not the point - it uses a primary source. CuriousGolden failed te test - he reverted my edit- with no explanation. See deleted reference and video here "The Defense Minister of Azerbaijan has released a footage of the liberated Shusha". ednews.net. 9 November 2020.</ref> Also ping @Jr8825: Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Interesting test. I replaced a source by the Azerbaijani Ministry of Defence with a source by a news site reporting on the video. Are you sure you know what primary source means? — CuriousGolden (T·C) 17:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The site used the video that was supplied by the Ministry. There is no independent verification. It's still primary, just a poor attempt to hide it. Are you sure you know what primary source means? Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Primary Sources are immediate, first-hand accounts of a topic, from people who had a direct connection with it. A source itself doesn't become a primary source when it includes a video from a primary source. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 18:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi again @CuriousGolden:. Laurel Lodged is indeed correct here, your new link is indeed just a regurgitation of the primary source. I suspect ednews.net is either in some way associated with the Azerbaijani government, state-sponsored press or simply operating in an environment where it is obliged to repeat government announcements. To be frank, in a country like Azerbaijan which is ranked 168 out of 180 for press freedom by Reporters Without Borders, it's unlikely we're going to be finding secondary sources that have the freedom to report accurately on sensitive issues. I've done your work for you this time and found two independent secondary sources reporting on that video: CNN, TASS. You can add these to the article, replacing ednews.net. Note that per WP:RSP, TASS should be used with caution if it's reporting on areas where the Russian government has a key interest, although in the case of this conflict it appears to generally be a good source. Do these examples give you a better idea of what we're talking about when it comes to independent secondary sources? Jr8825 • Talk 18:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the help. I'll replace it with those sources. I also expect Laurel Lodged to remove his primary source as promised, as it's been more than a day since his promise. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 18:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Since CL now admits that he can't recognise a primary source, it looks like I'll have to remove all primary sources from this article myself. Thanks Jr8825. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that all is now in order. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

You still haven't deleted your own primary source as you promised 2 days ago. I've done it for you. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 08:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Removal/marginalization of the Armenian name

• @Solavirum: The removal of the Armenian name from the introduction, justifying it with regard to the founding of the town is quite problematic - the town is historically, culturally and religiously/spiritually important to both Armenians and Azerbaijanis. The town has also historically had a significant Armenian community (Shusha#Demographics), with Armenians being the majority from the mid-1800s to 1920 when the Armenian quarter was destroyed and the population was massacred or displaced. The removal/marginalization of the place names of minority/past majority nationalities is also not standard on Wikipedia articles, for example - the articles for Turkish cities such as Van, Muş and Kars that historically had significant Armenian communities or majorities before the Armenian Genocide feature the Armenian names and the İzmir/Smyrna and Trabzon articles features the Greek names in the introduction/infoboxes. Other Azerbaijani cities with historically significant Armenian communities such as Nakhchivan and Julfa also feature the Armenian names in the introduction. AntonSamuel (talk) 08:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, but demographic says that in 1823 majority was azerbaijanis. I think your statement is wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oguzhaykuni (talk • contribs) 09:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• My argument was not related to who was "first" in the town or who has the "better" claim, but that both narratives/histories should be respected/taken into account. Armenians have had a significant presence in the town and were the majority during some periods (1886-1920, 1992-2020). AntonSamuel (talk) 09:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• It would be much easier to argue the case for the Armenian side here if an Azerbaijani/Turkish name could have been added to Yerevan (which in the 17th century was overwhelmingly Turkish) and would stick there for a reasonable time period.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• This is what I was about to point out. I don't disagree with AntonSamuel's point, but by that logic, we should include Azerbaijani name for Yerevan, which had a historic Azerbaijani community (which were majority during the 19th-early 20th century). — CuriousGolden (T·C) 10:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• @CuriousGolden:@Ymblanter: Yes, absolutely agree - Oguzhaykuni

• Personally, I wouldn't mind this - however, the state of Wikipedia articles are not totally uniform and sometimes it needs to be dealt with case to case - I've seen that the issue of Due and undue weight is sometimes raised with regard to place names, which I try to take into consideration. AntonSamuel (talk) 10:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with @CuriousGolden:, and @Ymblanter:. Not only Yerevan, but many cities, towns, and villages in Armenia historically had significant Azerbaijani presence, until their deportation. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• While this issue is regarding Shusha/Shushi, you're welcome to open a discussion on the pages where you think there are significant alternative/historical place names missing and how MOS:LEADALT and WP:UNDUE can be balanced there. I've also seen that the Armenian name is missing for the lede on the Ganja article for example, which used to have a large Armenian community. AntonSamuel (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• @AntonSamuel: I can feel your sympathy to armenians, when we asking him about that Yerevan's population in 1826 was 64% azerbaijanis and by that logic, there has to be to variation of names, he trying to change subject to Ganja city. Not bad. So what about Shusha, why don't we remove name in armenian, or we should add azerbaijani name to Yerevan. Want to know your opinion Oguzhaykuni (talk)

• Unlike Shusha & Yerevan, Ganja never had an Armenian-majority in its close history (19th-21st). — CuriousGolden (T·C) 12:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Seems like Archives908 is against this proposal. Explain yourself. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• It is very simple- history is different then the current realties of who is living in Yerevan and Baku today. Your edit on Yerevan was out of place. By your logic, you should have fairly included the Armenian spelling/translation of Baku on the Baku article- as more then 207,000 Armenians called Baku home in 1970. However, there is no justification to include that in the lead of either the Baku/Yerevan articles, as those are currently neither official names of the respective cities and they are not used by the local population nor government officials in any capacity. I have zero interest in getting dragged into this debate- but just by glancing at the above comments, I urge all editors to keep edits fair and as impartial as possible. Let's not rush to forget WP:NPOV so quickly now... Archives908 (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Archives908, "By your logic, you should have fairly included the Armenian spelling/translation of Baku on the Baku article". Ermmm, no? Baku never had an Armenian majority, but Erivan had an Azerbaijani majority. "as those are currently neither official names of the respective cities and they are not used by the local population nor government officials in any capacity", neither Shushi is used as an official name. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• I sense some aggression. Your edit on Yerevan in the lead is inappropriate as that is misleading to readers and it is inaccurate to the current realities of who lives in Yerevan. Just as much as having Armenian in the lead of Baku would be misleading. As for your majority/minority point- that is not enough of a valid argument to base this off of. Also, continuing to re-add your content while a talk page discussion is still undergoing is a big no-no. Archives908 (talk) 15:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Wouldn't this mean that argument for including Armenian name in Shusha is also misleading? — CuriousGolden (T·C) 16:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Personally, I think it should be included in the history section. But I have not been part of the ongoing debate here and I'd rather not get involved with something that I haven't spent much time reviweing. My attention, however, is focused on the Yerevan/Baku articles. I have no clue why Solavirum tagged me in this thread? It's not appreciated or appropriate.
• I shall also take this opportunity to remind everyone that no matter what biases we may have, we should all be as fair, neutral, and consistent as possible. Archives908 (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• @AntonSamuel: We are waiting for your response, my dear friend Oguzhaykuni (talk)

• After reading a lot of angry talkback, pseudo-bullying and (my favourite part) wikipedians stating 1826 as a recent date.

1) If we look at demographics and compare them Yerevan had a turkic majority ~200 years ago (no one used the word Azerbaijani back then, as much as I know) while Shusha had an Armenian majority just last month.

2) culturally speaking, is Yerevan historically important for Azerbaijani culture? No

Is Shusha important culturally for them Armenians? Yes, with dozens of landmarks existing throughout Shusha.

3) I am not pointing fingers, but don't you sense a bit of Azerbaijani Pov pushing lately on Wikipedia? We get it that the Azerbaijani army took some :lands, do military victories include rights to change information of encyclopedic value? (Other than ending the endless "de facto" and "de juro" debates) Kevo327 (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Kevo327, last time I checked Diyarbakır wasn't called Tigranakert for the last 2,000 years. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• And most of the things you wrote above is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. "culturally speaking, is Yerevan historically important for Azerbaijani culture?" Yes! Never heard of Blue Mosque in Erivan? but don't you sense a bit of Azerbaijani Pov pushing lately on Wikipedia. No Kevo, we don't. Some editors like you need to watch their tone before making such provocative comments. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• I apologize for my tone, and as for your points, the blue mosque's origin is often contested and also stated as Persian and in the Diyarbakir article Tigranakert is mentioned for historic value and not demographics. Kevo327 (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Sadly, it is contested. But as Thomas de Waal put it, the Armenians have been Iranifying Shiite mosques built by the Turks/Azerbaijanis in their country and Karabakh. Which de Waal compared to the Albanification of Armenian churches. For Yerevan/Erevan/Erivan/Iravan, the Azerbaijani name of the city had historical value throughout the middle ages and the early modern period. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Who is Thomas de Waal? And how can you Iranify something that was already Iranian to start with it? The area was a integral part of Iran. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Literally the most-known Caucasus expert, with 71K+ results in Google Scholar. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

He's a journalist, not an actual historian. Thus irrelevant. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Back to the matter of the inclusion of the Armenian version of the town's name Շուշի Shushi

What Wikipedia guidelines recommend per MOS:LEADALT is that "...Significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages. Indeed, alternative names can be used in article text in contexts where they are more appropriate than the name used as the title of the article. For example, the city now called "Gdańsk" can be referred to as "Danzig" in suitable historical contexts. The editor needs to balance the desire to maximize the information available to the reader with the need to maintain readability."

and per WP:OTHERNAMES/WP:NCPLACE that "The lead: The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parentheses, e.g.: Gulf of Finland (Estonian: Soome laht; Finnish: Suomenlahti; Russian: Финский залив, Finskiy zaliv; Swedish: Finska viken) is a large bay in the easternmost arm of the Baltic Sea. Any archaic names in the list (including names used before the standardization of English orthography) should be clearly marked as such, i.e., (archaic: name1). Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or that is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted."

My interpretation is that this gives leeway to a pretty generous inclusiveness regarding historical and significant alternative place names in the lede and on articles in general, with an emphasis on maintaining the readability of the page - avoiding too much clutter in the lede, as well as confusion with regard to different names in the text.

Considering the vast amount of sourced material regarding the historical, cultural and religious ties of the Armenian people to the town that is featured on the article, and the results you get when searching for "Shushi" and "Shusha" on Google, with Shushi being even more prevalent than Shusha, and on Google Scholar, with Shushi accounting for ~28% of the results [8] [9], I would say its inclusion in the lede is more than appropriate.

AntonSamuel (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

If Google says it's Shushi, who are we to deny it? It should appear as another name in the lead. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Google isn't such a great way to determine WP:COMMONNAME. I could create a website with 500 pages that say "Shushi" that would boost up the search results. Wouldn't mean that it became the common name. Renowned authors, such as Thomas De Waal and news organizations such as BBC, Al Jazeera and France24 all use "Shusha" as the main word, which establishes it as the common name. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 12:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

This issue is regarding an alternative name of the town, not the renaming of the article so WP:COMMONNAME is of less relevance here. However, I also complemented with Google Scholar and added "Karabakh" to the searches for accuracy. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't really mind the Armenian name inside {{lang}} template as long as similar articles about Armenian cities also get the same treatment. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 13:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

From the discussion above that escalated pretty quickly about other towns and cities, I would say it's probably best that each case is handled separately. With that said, Wikipedia guidelines as far as I interpret them, are pretty generous when it comes to the inclusion of significant alternative names. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• Hi all, I don't know what past revisions looked like, but can't see any problem with the current version of the lead. Shusha is given first and maintained throughout, while we include Shushi as the alternative, Armenian translation. Both Armenians and Azerbaijanis consider the town important to them. It's one of the major cities in a region that both nationalities feel they have a claim to and have been fighting over intermittently for the last 30 years. Discussions over Baku and Yerevan belong on their respective article talk pages as they're both different situations to Nagorno-Karabakh. Jr8825 • Talk 13:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• Agreed. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 13:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Off-topic passage under "Shusha within the Russian Empire"

The following passage does not seem to relate to the history of city directly. This belongs perhaps in the article for Karabakh or Nagorno-Karabakh. Instead of a full passage it could be mentioned in the previous paragraph that Armenians migrated to the city from the surrounding area where they formed a majority (For example: "Shusha grew and developed, with successive waves of migrants moving to the city, particularly Armenians, who formed a demographic majority in the surrounding highlands")

A survey prepared by the Russian imperial authorities in 1823, several years before the 1828 Armenian migration from Persia to the newly established Armenian Province, shows that all Armenians of Karabakh compactly resided in its highland portion, i.e., on the territory of the five traditional Armenian principalities, and constituted an absolute demographic majority on those lands. The survey's more than 260 pages recorded that the district of Khachen had twelve Armenian villages and no Tatar (Muslim) villages; Jalapert (Jraberd) had eight Armenian villages and no Tatar villages; Dizak had fourteen Armenian villages and one Tatar village; Gulistan had twelve Armenian and five Tatar villages, and Varanda had twenty-three Armenian villages and one Tatar village.

--Fischia Il Vento (talk) 11:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you that it's not related to the city's history. We can replace it with the sentence you proposed: Shusha grew and developed, with waves of migrants moving to the city, particularly Armenians, who formed a demographic majority in the surrounding highlands. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 11:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Armenian name in the info-box

Hello. My opinion is 'Shushi' shouldn't be in the info-box. Because Shusha is located in Azerbaijan (de-jure | de-facto) and the name 'Shusha' is used in all international sources. Azerbaijanis are in the majority there. And also, in 1988, Azerbaijanis were in the majority. Thanks. EljanM (TALK) 13:59, 16 January 2021

Until 1994, Armenians used the name 'Shusha', until 1994 there was no name 'Shushi'. EljanM (TALK) 14:30, 16 January 2021

MOS:INFOBOXGEO gives pretty generous leeway in the way I interpret it for alternative names to be included in the infobox. See earlier discussion [10] regarding the relevance of the Armenian name with regard to the historical Armenian presence in the town. That Armenians were not a majority in Shushi/Shusha in 1988, does not mean that their connection to the town should be dismissed. AntonSamuel (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the Shusha page should be like the Nakhchivan page. We can see the Armenian name on the Nakhchivan page but there is no Armenian name in the info box. EljanM (TALK) 07:35, 20 January 2021

@AntonSamuel: I will remove 'Shushi' from info-box like the page of Nakhcivan. Thanks EljanM (TALK) 14:33, 22 January 2021

Please don't change anything until you've reached WP:CONSENSUS. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 14:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I support armenian name should be in the page of Shusha. But Shusha (de-facto|de-jure) is controlled by Azerbaijan like Nakhcivan. We can see armenian name in the page of Nakhcivan but we can't see armenian name in the info-box. EljanM (TALK) 14:42, 22 January 2021

As AntonSamuel points out, we've already had an extended discussion on this. The Armenian name is clearly presented as secondary to the Azerbaijani name in the infobox (both the English and Azerbaijani versions are presented above the Armenian, and with a larger text size. I don't see any advantage of removing the Armenian name, particularly as the town has historically had a notable Armenian minority. If anything, it could appear to be whitewashing the town's Armenian history. @EljanM: can you point to a specific policy justifying the removal of the Armenian name? Other comparisons ("other stuff exists") is a weak rationale and while it may be your opinion [that] 'Shushi' shouldn't be in the info-box, I'm not convinced there's any problem. Jr8825 • Talk 16:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jr8825: Until 1994, Armenians used the name "Shusha". 'Shushi' is a new name. Shusha is important for both sides, I know, but Shusha was created by Azerbaijanis, Azerbaijanis formed a majority in Shusha, and soon Azerbaijanis will be a majority in Shusha. EljanM (TALK) 17:32, 22 January 2021

Until 1994, Armenians used the name "Shusha" your claim is directly contradicted by the sources currently in the article, which say the name 'Shushi' was used during the 1700s. The settlement's history is contested by both groups. Jr8825 • Talk 17:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jr8825: If you don't believe me, you can see it on youtube. When Shusha was captured, Armenians used to say "Azatagrum shrjanum Shusha". In Armenian it means the liberation of Shusha region. EljanM (TALK) 17:44, 22 January 2021

How is this related? They calling it or not calling it "Shushi" in 1990s doesn't change the fact that "Shushi" has been in use for at least some chunk of the city's history and has became an alternate name, which is why it's provided in the article. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 17:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@CuriousGolden:, @Jr8825:, @AntonSamuel: Ok guys. You added the name of 'Shushi', because formerly Shusha had Armenian majority. Lets add Azerbaijani name to Yerevan, Vardenis, Kapan, Sisian and Meghri. Becuase formerly these cities had Azerbaijani majority. Ok? EljanM (TALK) 18:08, 22 January 2021

I understand your good intent, but that's unfortunately WP:OTHERSTUFF. I do agree with adding Azerbaijani name as an alternate to cities that formerly had Azerbaijani-majority, like Yerevan (none of the others you listed had Azerbaijani-majority), but that's not relevant to this discussion. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 18:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Kapan, Sisian, Vardenis and Meghri had Azerbaijani majority. You can see it in the page of Azerbaijanis in Armenia. EljanM (TALK) 18:25, 22 January 2021

Azerbaijanis in Armenia article talks about the Armenian SSR provinces that had the same name as the cities. But the cities themselves haven't had Azerbaijani-majority as far as I know. Regardless, this is not the topic we should be discussing. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 18:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@EljanM: if you want to build a consensus for adding Azerbaijani names to those cities, the place to discuss this is on each of their talk pages. I can see you've already started a thread at Yerevan. Be aware that there have been many discussions about this in the past. You'll need to put forward a convincing argument based on Wiki policies/guidelines if you want to persuade other editors to overturn previous discussions. There's nothing more to be achieved here. Jr8825 • Talk 18:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Shusha, until last year, was exclusively inhabited by the Armenians (settlers, or not). And there are a lot of RS mentioning the name Shushi. I assume good faith in you, but keep in mind, if have problems on articles like Yerevan, place a discussion there, not here. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 03:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Solavirum:, @CuriousGolden:, @Jr8825: Guys let's discuss this on the Yerevan discussion page. We must add Azerbaijani name to the page of Yerevan. EljanM (TALK) 11:42, 23 January 2021

Shushi in bold

@Solavirum: I've reverted your edit now - as you did not present a valid rationale for removing the boldface for "Shushi" that I added and which I explained in the edit summary while referring to Wikipedia guidelines that are clear about the matter. The bolding of the name was not the topic of the previous discussion [11] - but the very presence of the name and its status as a significant alternative name per Wikipedia guidelines.

Here is the rationale I presented in the edit summary:

Bolding significant (>10%) alternative name "Shushi" per WP:NCGN#Alternative names/MOS:BOLDSYN (Google Scholar: "Shushi" "Karabakh": 375 [12], "Shusha" "Karabakh": 992 [13]; Google: "Shushi" "Karabakh": 747 000 [14]; "Shusha" "Karabakh": 697 000 [15])

If you believe that I've misinterpreted the guidelines, I welcome your input.

AntonSamuel (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I will have to revert your edit, as your argument is unrelated to WP:CONSENSUS. Furthermore, my time is up, I will have to respond to you tomorrow. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Will we ever WP:DROPTHESTICK about the Armenian name in this article? We have had 2 separate long discussions about it already ([16], [17]), both of which ended with the consensus to keep the article as it is ([18]). Google Scholar and simple Google results can be used to give a general idea on the non-controversial topics, but they're absolutely not a deciding factor on a matter as controversial as this one. I'm honestly tired of discussing the same thing over and over every few days. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 17:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I would say the status of "Shushi" as a significant alternative name has already been established in the previous discussion. WP:NCGN states that search engine tests are permissible to utilize (such as for multiple local names), despite their issues. However, there is also a vast amount of sourced material on this page utilizing "Shushi" and touching upon the Armenian heritage of the town. If you want to dispute that, I would advise you to ping an administrator for input to save us time.

However, this issue was with regard to the boldface of "Shushi", and I believe I explained quite clearly my rationale for its inclusion. AntonSamuel (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Capture/Recapture in Demographic Table and Elsewhere in Article

@Solavirum: @CuriousGolden: @Laurel Lodged: I am opening a talk page discussion since we seem to disagree on the correct term to use in the article. Note that out of five examples of international media outlets covering the outcome of the battle, 4/5 used the wording "capture", and only 1 used the wording "recapture" anywhere in the article (and still used "capture" for the headline. Articles: No recapture: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/08/world/europe/nagorno-karabakh-azerbaijan-shusha.html https://www.politico.eu/article/azerbaijan-armenia-nagorno-karabakh-second-largest-city-capture/ https://www.dw.com/en/nagorno-karabakh-azerbaijan-announces-capture-of-major-city/a-55536491 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/16/five-ways-2020-nagorno-karabakh-conflict-will-change-map/

Capture in headline & Recapture in body text: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/08/azerbaijan-claims-to-have-captured-key-city-in-nagorno-karabakh

Furthermore, as Laurel Lodged pointed out, if the town was captured after a month of back and forth or so, where the town had recently been under Azerbaijani control, then "recapture" would be an appropriate term. However, Azerbaijan had not exercised control over the town in 28 years, thus the term captured is most appropriate here. I would be restoring the original terming at this point, as when I added the entry into the demography table the wording in the article used was "captured", but it's been fully locked since then. Achemish (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Achemish, there was already a discussion about it on User_talk:Laurel_Lodged#Shusha. Common names are, as the name suggests, for names, not words. "Recapture" is the act of "taking something into your possession again, especially by force" according to Cambridge Dictionary and "recover (something taken or lost)" according to Google. It's really no use to waste time on what words to use. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

CuriousGolden that was not a discussion, it was a comment and it was left today. If a discussion is going to be held on this matter, it should be done here. Again, note how reputable media almost entirely refers to this as a "capture", not "recapture". The problem is that "recapture" is a loaded term that implies a correct owner to the city, which is obviously controversial here. From the Armenian POV, I could easily term the 1992 capture as a "recapture" because it has been "taken or lost" from the Armenians previously. Capture is a proper, neutral term, and if you don't want to waste time on what words to use, then I suggest using the proper neutral wording here. Achemish (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Achemish, generally when the only known disagreer doesn't reply to an explanation of the other side, it's accepted as a silent consensus. As I pointed out above, common names is for the use of names, not words, but if you're so insistent, then you can find lot more reliable sources using "recapture" than the few ones you've nitpicked: EuroNews, RFE/RL, Vox, Al Jazeera, Reuters, MoscowTimes. Also not sure how "recaptured" is not neutral as you seem to imply. Azerbaijan always owned the city according to every international country and organization and it retook the city during the 2020 war, unlike "capture" which implies that it was new land that it just got. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Note the singular use of the term "recapture" by the Guardian is prefaced by "Azerbaijan has said..." Maidyouneed (talk) 10:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

On a follow up note, @Ymblanter: could we please have the term in the article restored to the original "captured" that was used before the edit warring began, until we have a consensus? Achemish (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Achemish, per WP:ONUS we keep the version before the dispute began until the dispute is solved. And dispute began with this edit by Laurel Lodged. So it's the opposers to "recaptured" that need to make a case against it. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

CuriousGolden that's being willfully misleading considering you changed "capture" to "recapture" in multiple instances throughout the article, where they had been ini place for over a month, in this edit: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Shusha&type=revision&diff=1006359887&oldid=1006359763. Thus, those instances were originally "captured", and you need to present case against it being "captured". The demographic table timeline is different, the entry in the demographic table did not exist until I added it, with the initial wording of "capture", in this edit: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Shusha&oldid=1006057825. Note that at this time, "capture" and not "recapture" was still being used throughout the article, as you had not made your edit yet. You then made your edit here: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Shusha&type=revision&diff=1006132966&oldid=1006065121 to change my entry in the demographic table from "capture" to "recapture". Thus, Laured Lodged was actually just restoring the original version after you had changed it. Both in the demographic table, and throughout the rest of the article, "capture" is the original terminology. Achemish (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The city was controlled by Azerbaijan until '92 and was considered part of Azerbaijan by the international community during the period of Armenian military occupation. It is only logical to use the term recaptured for the 2020 developments. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

We should be restoring the original "capture" until this dispute is resolved, per WP:BRD. Capture is workable description; It describes the event without any implication. We should be using common sense if we are considering the term recaptured. Do we describe the capture of Crimea as a recapture by the Russians? We don't because recapture implies capturing again within the same war or within recent clashes. Recapture introduces this ambiguity. The de jure status recognised by the international community isn't as relevant; Recognition is not the same as prior recent control. Maidyouneed (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• 'Capture' is the better term, and we should prefer it in most places in this article because 'recapture' has to be used appropriately. 'Recapture' suggests to a native English reader that the town was recently lost, it needs to be contextualised by a mention of the 1992 capture, which it has to closely follow within the prose (e.g. in the current revision, 'recapture' works in the section on museums and in the final paragraph of demographics, but it doesn't work in the chart outlining Shusha's historic population and ethnicity). We should avoid overusing 'recapture' as emphasising it over the more natural and precise 'capture' comes across as trying to demonstrate the rightfulness of Azerbaijani control (by inferring that Armenia's relationship with Shusha mostly stems from capturing the town by force in 1992, whereas obviously the town has been a much longer, mixed history). Used in this way the word would be (subtly) non-neutral, irrespective of the town's legal status. I'm haven't checked the diffs, but if editors were going through changing many instances of 'capture' to 'recapture', it wouldn't be a helpful or positive change. Jr8825 • Talk 03:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

  That is indeed what is happening. The article did not have "recapture" in place anywhere until this edit by CuriousGolden here https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Shusha&type=revision&diff=1006359887&oldid=1006359763 on 1/12, which changed capture to recapture. I am also having a conflict in editing the Hadrut page over the same issue, where the wording was "capture" in the article when referring to the 2020 capture by Azerbaijani forces, until CuriousGolden introduced the term "recapture" in this edit https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Hadrut&type=revision&diff=1006064567&oldid=1006064319. Thus, I am not sure on how we would go about doing this (would discussion this page suffice?), but I would like to have a discussion and set a consensus for the use of "capture" vs "recapture" terminology for all articles related to NK. I would also like to return the phrasing to the original "capture" on the Hadrut page as well until a consensus is reached, as per WP:BRD Achemish (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

  Jr8825, Almost all of the WP:RS that have covered this conflict have used "recaptured" to describe Azerbaijan gaining back the territories it had lost during the first war (EuroNews, RFE/RL, Vox, Al Jazeera 1, Al Jazeera 2, Reuters, MoscowTimes). This discussion seems very much similar to the large-scale discussion we had in the past about "occupied" and "controlled" when people tried to argue that "controlled" is more NPOV even though every country & international organization referred to them as "occupied". This is the same case. Avoiding correct, commonly-used terminology for the sake of false WP:NPOV isn't helpful. "Recapture" doesn't show the "rightfulness of Azerbaijani control", it shows that the territories aren't completely new territories that Azerbaijan has conquered, but lands it de jure owned since independence (according to UN, PACE, OSCE & more..). — CuriousGolden (T·C) 07:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

  @CuriousGolden: using 'recaptured' a couple of times with clear historical context (as I explained above) is fine, I agree. The problem is changing the word 'captured' to 'recaptured' for no other reason than to make/illustrate a point/fact. You contradict yourself when you say that it doesn't show the rightfulness of Azerbaijani control, but also that it shows they're "lands it de jure owned since independence" – we're talking about the same thing, it's emphasising the rightfulness of Azerbaijani control. It's fine to make the fact clear, in the appropriate place, that the town was occupied illegally by Armenia in 1992. However, changing the wording throughout the article because you think this point is particularly important is editorialising, which is easy to slip into when an issue is close to your heart and you want to make sure it isn't missed. The facts speak for themselves, though, and it's not our job to 'nudge' the reader: the end result is that the tone becomes a narrative, rather than an impartial, detached reference work. "Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized" (see WP:IMPARTIAL). I don't think you're doing this intentionally, but please hold up for a minute and have a think about this. Jr8825 • Talk 08:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

  Jr8825, I don't mind using "captured" when there is no place to provide context (e.g. in demographics box). Though "recaptured" should be used in large texts when there's enough historical context (e.g. in the Museums section). Do you agree with this? — CuriousGolden (T·C) 08:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think we should prefer 'recaptured' and go about replacing 'captured'. When I go back and read those sections, 'captured' is definitely better. It's not neutral to refer to the Armenian 'capture' of Shusha and the Azerbaijani 'recapture' of Shusha every time the phrases come up – in both cases the city was captured by an armed force. As I mentioned, it works best when the two events are mentioned close to each other – there's no problem with it in the final paragraph of Demographics because the paragraph mentions both events. In the Museums section it works but 'capture' would be preferable, as it's a separate paragraph from the one which discusses the Armenian capture. Also, we need to remove the wikilinks to the Battle of Shusha (2020) each time it's mentioned, it's already linked in the lead so it's a case of WP:OVERLINK. I can see language favouring Armenia as well. For example, "constantly" in "Azerbaijani forces constantly shelled the capital Stepanakert" would probably be better replaced with 'continuously' (or simply removed), as it's too strong an adjective and unnecessary. Jr8825 • Talk 08:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

  Jr8825, sure we can use "recaptured" in Demographics section and "captured" in Museums. There are a lot more MOS problems with the article and overlinking is one of them. I'll try my hand at fixing MOS problems when the article is unlocked. And I agree that "constantly" should be removed or replaced. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 08:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated removal of "Expulsion of Armenians in September 1988" from the demographic table

CuriousGolden, you removed this from the demographic table in this edit: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Shusha&type=revision&diff=1006362298&oldid=1006362029, claiming that "there is nothing about this in the cited Black Garden book". This is false, the provided citation is for page 47 of De Waal's book, and indeed, this quote if from page 47: "But did did ignite in September 1988, when, within a few days, all the Armenians were expelled from Shusha and all the Azerbaijanis were driven from Stepanakert". I am going to revert this edit when the protection period expires. Achemish (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Achemish, are we looking at the same book? No such quote exists on page 47. I had to search the book for the quote and it's on page 46, which created the confusion. You can add it back with the fixed page number. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 07:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

CuriousGolden Hmm, it seems like we do have different versions. The quote is on page 47 for me, I have the 10 year anniversary edition so that might be why. I did not introduce the original citation but I imagine it used the same edition. I'll try to make the edition in the citation clear when I add it back in, I'm glad that is cleared up. Achemish (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Achemish, great. Thanks. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 08:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

There are two editions to the book (2003 and 2013), so it makes sense to specify which one you guys are consulting when citing it in the article. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 13:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Demographics

I've been trying to figure out the reason for the drastic demographic number jumps in several years, which don't seem to be just natural growth. There are 2 cases where this happens. One is from 1830 to 1851, where it jumps from 1,725 to 15,194 and later from 1904 to 1916 where it jumps from 25,656 to 43,869. I was thinking perhaps the census recording method or the definition of Shusha's borders at the time had changed.

Another issue is the huge number drop from 43,869 to 5,104 from 1916 to 1926 (38,765 drop). This is attributed to the Shusha massacre, where up to 20,000 Armenians were massacred and rest expulsed. But how about the Azerbaijani number drop from 19,121 to 4,900? How can this be explained? I've spent some time trying to find an answer to this, with no luck. Does anyone here have any idea about a possible reason for these? — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The 20,000 figure for 1920 is fantastical. I don't think Shusha/Shushi even had a population that large at that time. The most sober estimate is about 500 Armenian deaths, with the resulting devastation leaving the town fairly uninhabitable until Soviet efforts to rebuild and revive it. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Then this makes the number drop even more confusing. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 08:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps Revolution Saga would be knowledgable about this? — CuriousGolden (T·C) 18:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I've searched through the Caucasian Calendar of 1917 and found no mention of the numbers presented in the Demographics box for the year 1916, therefore I've removed it. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 21:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 25 April 2021

Please change this sentence in the 1988–1994 Nagorno-Karabakh War section from

The city was looted and burnt by Armenians.

to

The city was looted and burnt by Armenians citizens from nearby Stepanakert, who had endured months of bombing and shelling from Azerbaijani forces.

Source is citation #89 that is currently after the sentence right now. Steverci (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. The source does not say that. Please see my comment above. Grandmaster 08:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done – a consensus is needed for controversial changes before submitting an edit request. You can read the guidance here. I suggest creating a separate discussion on the source and whether its mention of Stephanakert warrants inclusion, and then submitting an edit request if a consensus is found. Jr8825 • Talk 15:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)