Talk:Shusha/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Recent addition

The following passage was added by Hablabar:

The earliest mentions of Shusha appear in the Middle Ages. The earliest known artifact from the town appears to be the illustrated Armenian Gospel kept in Yerevan's Matenadaran under the archival number 8211; it was re-produced in Shusha by the calligrapher Тер-Manuel in 1428. <ref>Boris Baratov. A Journey to Karabakh. Moscow, 1998, pp. 32-33</ref><ref>Hravard Hakobian. Miniatures of [[Artsakh]] and [[Utik]] 13-14th centuries. p. 25, Yerevan, 1989</ref><ref>Епископ Макар Бархутарянц, История Албании, том 1, Вагаршапат, 1902, с. 384 (на арм. яз); Bishop Makar Barkhudariants. History of Aghvank. Volume 1, Vagharshapat, 1902, p. 384</ref>

However none of the sources used is third party and could be considered reliable. The rules recommend using third party peer reviewed specialist sources, which clearly not something the above sources are. Grandmaster 21:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

from our discussion here [1] it seems that Grandmaster is not aware what reliable sources are. please familiarize yourself here [2]. all sources used are reliable because there is nothing that may prove otherwise, and all of them are specialists who published many books and on whose works other sources rely. the passage is based on observations of the reputable historian bishop makar bahudariants made in 1902, and i personally photographed the miniature which is on display at matenadaran. Hablabar (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

bishops makar barhudaryants' observations are as valuable as Mirza Jamal Javanshir Karabagi's "History of Karabakh." both are historians. If you doubt we will need to remove Mirza Jamal Javanshir Karabagi. Hablabar (talk) 01:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I added another two sources. This is after all, not an opinion of a historian, but a constatation of a fact, that such a written record exists. Хаченци (talk) 02:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for discovering these important records. Hablabar (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The cited sources seem more than enough to prove the point.Roses&guns (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

All those sources are not neutral, and represent the Armenian POV. Especially the likes of Ulubabyan, who is known for his falsifications of history. If I start adding references to Azerbaijani historians, you will be the first to protest. Please use third party sources. Obviously, both Armenian and Azerbaijani authors are engaged in a propaganda war, and we cannot take what they write at the face value. If references to modern Azerbaijani historians are removed like this: [3], then what is the point in inserting references to modern Armenian historians instead? Either we use both, or we use none. Grandmaster 20:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Ulubabyan, who is known for his falsifications of history.

Not really. It was Buniatov who was falsifying sources, removing everything connceted with Armenia or just changing them with Albania, or refering to non-existing sources. Ulubabyan may have speculative theories, but if he mentions that there is such a text in such a manuscript, then there is such a text. He has never falsified history. So, I think you should stop representing scholars as falsificators just because they are Armenian, none of the mentioned scholars has done something even similar to what you describe. After all, it's not Ulubabyans personal opinion mentioned in the article, but just the fact from his work that there is such a manuscript. And this manuscript is published in Khachikyans famous book, which is used as a source by different scholars. Хаченци (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Shnirelman wrote about Ulubabyan, it is not my personal opinion. And Azerbaijani scholars have as much credibility as Armenian ones, you cannot dismiss all Azerbaijani scholars because of one or two. Therefore we cannot remove Azerbaijani authors, but include the Armenian ones. Either both, or none. But in general, we should stick to third party sources, that have no involvement with the parties to the conflict. The rules require using third party sources, and the sources that you included are not third party. We can only maintain neutrality by using third party sources. Grandmaster 21:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Shnirelman writes Ulubabyan was falsificator? Has he ever falsified sources? Can you please cite Shnirelman exactly? Azerbaijani scholars hardly have the same credibility as Armenian ones, at least when it comes to the history of the region, since, as I said, Azerbaijani historical school was founded by people, who were falsifying sources in there redactions, and this people are still respected in Azerbaijan, and their wring texts are used. Furthermore, Azerbaijani scholars have destroyed a lot of architectural monuments (e.g. khachkars) in order to "prove" their theories. No Azerbaijani scholar who thinks khachkars are Albanian, Gandzasar and Dadivank are Albanian, Mkhitar Gosh and Kirakos Gandzaketsi are Albanian, etc, is taken serious by international scholars. You can compare the list of literature from the articles of most prominent scholars on the region and compare number of Armenian and Azerbaijani scholars cited, and then you will see whether or not they have the same credibility. Please, don't try to equalize the two, both Shnirelman and DeWaal have written in details about the differences of Armenian and Azerbaijani historical schools. If several Armenian authors say there is such a text, they give the same number of the manuscript, then why don't you beleive them. And a medieval Arm. manuscript can hardly be considered as POV. And the other sources have been published in Soviet times. And the first source is not Armenian at all. Again, it is not their view on history, but just a reference, that there is an Armenian Gospel (Matenadaran, MS no. 8211) which was written (according to a record in the manuscript) in a village of Shushi in 1428. Хаченци (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Armenian or Azerbaijani or any other historians can be used without second thoughts if they simply point to raw facts without interpreting them. All those sources do exactly that. I do not mind Ziya Buniyatov simply stating that Shusha was the center of the Karabakh Khanate between 1750s and 1805/1822. As to Bishop Barkhudaryants, he doubles as a primary source, like Bakikhanov or Mirza J. Jevanshir. Here is a supposedly "Caucasian Albanian" inscription found by Azerbaijani historians [4] - we can remove it as a suspected forgery but do not do that. Please display good faith, moderate your temper, and at last please bother to read the section on NPOV and reliable sources. Hablabar (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

If an Azerbaijani scholar states a fact that the town of Shusha was founded in the 18th century (and it is a fact acknowledged by every encyclopedia), do you mind including it? We do not know that the primary sources that you quote refer to the town of Shusha, and not to the village by that name located nearby. It is quite obvious that all those sources refer to the village, and not the city, because all contemporary sources, Muslim and Armenian alike (Azerbaijani chroniclers like Mirza Jamal Javanshir, Mirza Adigezal bey and Bakikhanov, Armenian Mirza Yusuf Nersesov and Raffi), say that the town was founded by Panah khan. Now to dispute that it is better to refer to someone with no connections to the sides of the conflict, and it can only be a third party scholar. Falsification does not necessarily mean distorting sources, twisting facts to make them fit into a false theory is also a falsification, and Armenian scholars are guilty of that too, and were criticized by every source describing nationalistic historiography in the Caucasus. As for the Caucasian Albanian inscription that you mention, there's not a single credible scholar on this planet who doubts that it was indeed written in the Albanian language. It is a fact acknowledged by the international scholarly community, so I do not see why you bring it up here. Grandmaster 21:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Grandmaster is right, it's not the town of Shushi, since in the manuscript it is written "the village called Shushi". I read only the last two sources, where the text is mentioned. They don't write anything about modern Shushi. Ulubabyan refers to the text in a completely different context (dating of Hovhannes - a Catholicos of the Albanian See), Khachikyan simply gives the complete text of the record, without any explanations or discussions. I am starting to think, that it should be mentioned in the context of village of Shosh. The citations from other sources might be useful here. What exactly they write? Do they write it is the first time the town is mentioned or the name Shushi is mentioned? Do they refer to someone, or it's their own conclusion, that the Gospel was written on the territory of modern town, and not in the nearby village of Shosh? Хаченци (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The sources mention Shushi and not Shosh (big difference), and if Grandmaster wants to exclude someone, let him exclude Mirza Jevanshir first. Raffi never said that Shusha was not a town, and Mirza Yusif (Muslim Armenian), Adigezal and Bakikhanov all parrot Jevanshir. Jevanshir was a mouthpiece of the Jevannshir clan, which was described by Raffi, Suvorov and other Russian and Georgian sources as "thievs" and "brigands" - how can they be trusted? I propose to exclude Jevanshir altogether. Hablabar (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

There's no compelling reason to ignore Mirza Javanshir. Even Bournoutian tackled him, publishing his own annotated translation of Qarabaghnamah. What you propose is an obvious personal opinion and WP:POV. Brandmeister^talk 21:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Aside from the aforementioned source issues, the assertion that "the Gospel was created in Shusha by the calligrapher Ter-Manuel" is rather problematic. How it was found? Is there a relevant notice? If that gospel contains the name "Shushi" or "Shosh" somewhere, how it is correlated with present town? Also, Boris Baratov, who is among the cited authors, is a filmmaker, not scholar, so we are left with only Armenian authors from 1902-1989 making that stale claim. Brandmeister^talk 22:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Raffi clearly says that the town was built on an empty spot:

Панах-хан указал одно место в Варанде, около реки Каркар, которое было владением мелика Шахназара и которое сама природа как бы предназначила для возведения там неприступной крепости. Союзники начали сооружение цитадели. Мелик Шахназар собственной рукой заложил первый камень в основание крепости, ставшей могилой как для него самого, так и для остальных меликств Карабаха... С одной стороны, продвигая сооружение крепости, а с другой — ведя войну против меликов, союзники вскоре завершили строительство (1762) и, переселив в нее армянское население расположенного неподалеку поселка Шош, назвали ее Шоши, или Шуши. [5]

As for Nersesov, if you read him, you'll see that he was not fond of Javanshirs, and hated Panah khan and Ibrahim khan. But he wrote the same thing as Raffi, Mirza Jamal and Mirza Adigezal. The town of Shusha was named after the village of Shushakent, or Shoshkend. So the village and town had the same name, but the village was referred to as "kend" to differentiate it from the town. I have no doubts that the village has an old history, and the primary Armenian sources obviously refer to it. It is impossible that all the Muslim and Armenian authors had no idea that the town of Shusha already existed when Panah khan settled there. Moreover, Mirza Jamal clearly says that the place where the town was built was an empty spot, which was used by people of Shushakend as a cropland and pasture. All those authors conducted their own researches, and if the town already existed before Panah, the Armenian authors Raffi and Nersesov would have certainly mentioned that. The only curious minor difference in different accounts is that Raffi says that the place was selected by the advise of Panah khan, while Mirza Adigezal says that the place of the future town was advised by Melik Shahnazar. Mirza Adigezal [6]:

Как было сказано выше, Панах-хан совещался с Мелнк-Шахназаром. По совету и указанию последнего, Панах-хан основал город Шушу. И так как на площади (где должен был быть основан город) не было текучих вод и родников вырыли несколько пробных колодцев. После того как из этих колодцев стало возможным вычерпывать воду, в 1170 году заложили фундамент будущего города Шуши. Жителей Шах-булага и нескольких деревень переселили сюда. Каждой семье было отведено место для поселения. После того как народ устроился и обосновался на новом месте, Панах-хан построил для своей семьи просторные здания и высокие дворцы. Искусные мастера, зодчие и видные специалисты принялись за строительство крепостных стен и башен, остатки которых сохранились и до наших дней.

Also, I have the reason to suspect that Barhudariants was misquoted. According to comments of the translator:

Кандидат исторических наук Т. И. Тер-Григорьян сообщил, что армянские авторы, например, Раффи в своем сочинении ,,Пять меликств” и Бархударян в ,,Арцахе” время закладки крепости Шуши определяют на основании данных Джемаля Джеваншира Карабаги и Мирзы-Адигезаль-бека.

If it is so, then Barhudariants (Bishop Makar Barkhudariants. History of Aghvank. Volume 1, Vagharshapat, 1902, p. 384) quite obviously wrote that the town of Shusha was founded in 18th century. Please provide a full quote from this source, and not just the part where he talks about the village, but also the part that deals with the foundation of the town, mentioned by Ter-Grigorian. Grandmaster 23:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Brandmeister. Baratov is indeed a weird source. Grandmaster 23:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

There was also another clue for the foundation year. Vasily Potto writes: "...in 1752 he built the unassailable fortress of Shusha and transferred his residence there. There is still an inscription on the wall of the town mosque, showing that the town and fortress were founded by Panakh-khan in 1167 Hijri year" ("...в 1752 году он построил неприступную шушинскую крепость и перенес туда свою резиденцию. На стенах городской мечети и поныне сохранилась надпись, свидетельствующая, что город и крепость основаны Пана-ханом в 1167 году Геджры"). Later that inscription was reportedly removed during the so-called "conservation works" or whatever it was, but at least in the 19th century the inscription was there. Brandmeister^talk 00:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The fort of Shusha, where the miniature and manuscript that we are discussing was produced, has been referred to as a fortified village Материалы для новой истории Кавказа с 1722 по 1803 год П. Г. Буткова. СПб. 1869.:

В российском документе середины XVIII века сообщалось Материалы для новой истории Кавказа с 1722 по 1803 год П. Г. Буткова. СПб. 1869.:

Крепчайшее по местоположению селение здесь Шуша. Оно принадлежало мелику Шахназару варандинскому, который, поссорясь с другими двумя меликами… союзными между собою издревле, вошёл в союз с Фона-Ханом (Пена-Ханом), незнатным владетелем кочующего близ Карабага Чаванширского (или Шаваншорского) татарского народа, по смерти Надыра; уступил ему Шушийскую деревню…

In other words, the document by Ter-Manuel was indeed produced in the city of Shusha, which was a settlement which was often referred to as the [big] village Shushi. It has nothing to do with the village of Shosh, which is anything but fortified. The Russian sources, like Suvorov, and also Georgians state clearly who founded the citadel of Shusha. The facts are out there and everyone knows them. Mirza J. Jevanshir is an interesting source of information about Karabakh, and that's the reasons why historians like Raffi and others rely on him for insight. But Jevanshir is not a good source when he talks about the land possessions of the Jevanshir clan because it is well-known that the Jevanshirs tried to defend Shusha as a feudal fief against the claims o descendents of Melik-Shahnazarians, who tried to kick out Jevanshirs out of Karabakh and return Shusha into their hands (and they almost achieved both goals). All references to the "establishment" of Shusha by Panakh are, as logicians would put, "[poisonous] fruits of the poisonous tree." Hablabar (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems there was no city or town called Shusha or Shushi back in Ter-Manuel's time and I don't see any compelling reason to discard the references about Panakh's foundation of Shusha. At best Shusha was a relatively small locality back then (perhaps a portion of land), which Melik Shakhnazar voluntarily ceded to Panakh. "The mid-19th century periodicals also confirm the date of the establishment of the Shusha fortress during 1753-1754. The September 1850 issue of the newspaper Kavkaz, for instance, notes that the wall in a Shusha mosque bears the date of the foundation of the town of Shusha - 1167 Hijri year (Kavkaz, 1850, 100). This suggestion is confirmed by the Caucasus Calendar from 1850... It looks like the inscription about the town's foundation was made on the wall of Juma Mosque in Shusha, and then was removed during the mosque's restoration by the architect Kerbelai Sefikhan Karabakhski" ("Материалы периодической печати середины XIX в. также подтверждают дату начала строительства крепости Шуши в период между 1753-1754 гг. Так, в газете «Кавказ» за сентябрь месяц 1850 года отмечается, что на стене мечети в Шуше зафиксирована дата основания города Шуши в 1167 г. по хиджры (Кавказ, 1850, 100). Эта мысль подтверждается и в «Кавказском календаре» за 1850 г.: «На стене одной из мечетей города есть дата основания крепости Шуши Панах ханом – 1167 г. хиджры». Видимо, надпись об основании города была запечатлена на стене мечети Джума в Шуше, а позднее эта надпись была изъята во время ремонта мечети архитектором Кербелаи Сефихан Гарабагским". The aforementioned Potto also writes about both "the town and fortress" ("город и крепость") in his reference to the same inscription. Brandmeister^talk 10:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I repeat: the manuscript of 1428 was created in the town of Shushi referred to as big village at times. This village/town was fortified per several descriptions, and it was that settlement that was transferred to Panah by Shahnazar per P.G. Butko, in the mid-18th c. Please don't confuse that fortified village of Shushi with the village of Shosh. Manuscripts are made in monasyeries and towns, not villages like Shosh. Also, Shushi was described as a place surrounded by high mountains. Shosh lies in the gorge and is not surrounded by any mountains. Shushi is surrounded by mountains. So, Shushi is Shushi and it was an old fortified settlement where manuscripts were produced beginning from the 15 c., and Shosh is Shosh, a village below Shushi. Hablabar (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The references show that this 1428 claim is the version of Armenian authors, not attested in foreign sources. As such I propose that the article should make a distinction between the reports on the 1750s foundation and conflicting reports (similar to what was implemented in the Russian Wiki). But that particular 1428 claim should go away as too problematic. Brandmeister^talk 22:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the 1428 claim lacks any foundation and should go. We still have not been provided the quotes from the original primary source (Makar Barkhudariants, which btw is a 20th century source), which seem to also claim in another paragraph that the town was founded by Panah khan, so the reference to the place called Shusha in 1428 quite obviously is to the village of that name, not the town. We have no reliable secondary source to support the claim that the manuscript was created in the town, and not the village of Shusha. At the same time, it is generally accepted that the town was founded in 1752 by Panah khan. In addition to numerous Azerbaijani and Armenian primary sources mentioned above, there are plenty of reliable secondary sources, such as Encyclopedia of Islam, for instance: [7] And then, presenting as a fact quite dubious claims about early foundation of the town, despite numerous reliable sources attesting to the contrary, is not in line with WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. At the very least, the article must admit the existence of different versions, but in accordance with the rules, the generally accepted version of foundation should be given preference as per WP:Weight. Grandmaster 23:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Btw, George Bournoutian also supports the traditional version of foundation in Iranica:

In the second half of the century, Ebrāhīm Khan built a strong fortress in Šūšī/Šūša which was referred to, during his lifetime, as Panāhābād (idem, p. 72). When Karīm Khan Zand took control of much of Persia, he forced Panāh Khan to come to Shiraz, where he died as a hostage. Ebrāhīm, succeeding his father (1760), not only ruled over most of Qarābāḡ, but also became one of the major potentates in the Caucasus. [8]

He makes a mistake though, the town was built by Panah khan, not his son Ibrahim khan. Grandmaster 00:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems that my show of moderation and tolerance toward the recent additions by Grandmaster are wrongly interpreted by Brandmeister who again opted for radical revisionism. Please comply with WP:BALANCE and WP:IMPARTIAL, as well as with the requirement for a chronological mode on historical narratives. Hablabar (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

This is what was already suggested above - the removal of the 1428 claim and giving each version of the town's origin its WP:DUEWEIGHT. I'd be ok with the chronological order, which may stay, but Potto's, Mirza Jamal's, Mirza Adigozal bey's and Raffi's account on the foundation by Panah Khan should remain in the lead and the 1428 claim dropped (per everything written here above). Brandmeister^talk 20:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the 1428 claim should be removed. We still haven't seen the quote from the original, and I highly doubt that it exists. The fact that no one is able to provide it speaks for itself, even though the book is available in Russian: [9] And even assuming that the reference is accurate, we still cannot be sure that the source talks about the town of Shusha, and not the village. There's no reliable third party source to provide an interpretation. So this claim should go. Grandmaster 22:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

My 2 cents : Almost all of the Persian sources say that the fortress was built in a mountainous region 6 kilometers (One Farsakh) west of the village Shosh , in a place that was the pasture of the villager's cattle and sheeps (in 1170 AH = (1756/1757) AD ) . About the Iranica (Bournoutian ) quote , I think there is no mistake because in the Panah-Khan era the walls of the castle has been ruined by invaders or natural causes and it took 3 years for Ibrahim khan to rebuild the fortress in 1198 AH (1783/1784 AD). So I think we may not mix the nearby Armenian village of Shosh with the castle of Shushi.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, all reliable regional sources attest to mid-18th century foundation. As for Bournoutian, I still think it is a mistake, but it could also be the error/typo of the website creators, because the fortress was called Panahabad during the lifetime of Panah khan, and in Ibrahim khan's times it was already called Shusha. In any case, the article by Bournoutian in Iranica is yet another source to confirm the foundation of the town in the 18th century. Grandmaster 22:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

...for my part I - and the sources - agree that Shosh and Shushi were two different settlements that might or might have not been connected. When sources mentioned "village of Shushi" they mean a settlement that predated the 18th century upgrade into a city. Cities are seldom built from scratch, especially by someone described as unimportant nomadic tribesmen. Hablabar (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Can we see the source? You haven't provided the quote so far, despite being asked numerous times. We do not know what the source means when referring to the village of Shusha, because we cannot make our own interpretations of the primary sources. A reliable secondary source is needed to interpret the primary source. And cities could be built from scratch, there are many examples of that. St Petersburg for instance. Grandmaster 00:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I removed any mention of the foundation of the town from the lead, because it only provided one version, and not the most prevalent one, in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. I think it is better to keep that out of the lead, or it will be bloated with different versions and quotes. It is better to discuss foundation in the relevant section. Grandmaster 01:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to put it back unless you give me a good reason not to. The article header now gives the false impression the city was founded by the Persians and robs the fact of Armenians antiquity. The demographics section makes it very clear Armenians had widely inhabited Shushi before anyone else with plenty of sources. I'm also going to suggest ill-faith from you, because this type of editing helps to claim Shushi has an Azeri origion, which it does not. HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I gave quite a good reason. The generally accepted version is not the one that was included in the lead, therefore you cannot keep the marginal version without mentioning the prevailing one. But it is better to avoid mentioning that issue altogether in the lead, as it will become inundated with sources and versions that say nothing to the casual reader. Those interested in the origins of the city can take a look at the relevant section. And no, the lead does not give an impression of the foundation by Persians. In fact, it says nothing about who founded it after my edit. If you insist in mentioning the foundation in the lead, then it needs to be done in accordance with the rules, by first mentioning the prevailing version (i.e. mid-18th century foundation by Panah khan), and then the marginal one, if at all, in accordance with WP:WEIGHT. Grandmaster 22:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

And I'm still waiting for the quotation, for which I asked many times to no avail. According to the WP:NOENG, "if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page". I have never failed to provide quotes from sources that I cited, and I expect the same from others. Grandmaster 22:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The fact that the Armenian presence in the territory of Shushi dates back earlier than the 18th century is mentioned by third sources - British historian Walker who refers to Hewsen writes the following:

"During the rule of Kara Yusuf's fifth son, Jahan Shah (1440-67), the Armenian people appear to have gained a higher profile... It was almost certainly Jahan Shah, who established a set of small buffer States at the northeastern edge of his realm, in the lands of Artsakh and Siunik. The local Armenian rulers of these "Statelets" were confirmed in authority... and they were granted a local autonomy and given a title of Melik... South of Khachen lay the small territory of Varanda, originally part of its southern neighbour, Dizak, and only given a separate identity in the early sixteenth century. The ruling family, confirmed in that capacity by Shah Abbas I, was that of the Melik Shahnazarians. In the territory of Varanda lies the modern town of Shushi (or Shusha)". Walker Christopher "The Armenian Presence in Mountainous Karabakh" in "Transcaucasian Boundaries" (SOAS/GRC Geopolitics) edited by John Wright, Richard Schofield, Suzanne Goldenberg, 1995 p. 93.

Thus he clearly speaks about the town of Shushi and definitely not Shosh village. The reference to an earlier origin of Shushi should not be removed from the lead as it is an essential and not marginal information.Roses&guns (talk) 12:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The conclusion seems to be far-stretched. Walker writes about the "modern town of Shushi (or Shusha)", he doesn't say it existed as a town back in the 15th century. Even if Walker actually asserts that Shusha as a town already existed back then, he seems to be in a clear minority (but personally I haven't seen a single reliable source that says so). Thus in view of present scholar research it's safe to write that the town and fortress of Shusha were founded by Panah in the 1750s. But I agree with Grandmaster that the article's body may handle this better than lead. Brandmeister^talk 15:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I am amazed at Brandm & Grandm Co.'s attitude. There are primary accounts talking about Shusha as a fortress and town back in the 1720s (one is quoted), there is a Georgian sources overtly rejecting Jevanchir's claims, and there are at least three Russian 18-19th century sources confirming Georgians (Suvorov, Bronevskiy and Butko), and yet Brandm & Grandm Co. display disregard of the evidence presented, calling all that minority view. Instead one should think of creating a text that would explain and present this discrepancy. And the lead should remain. Hablabar (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Walker is a not a primary account, and he talks about the modern town of Shusha, not the ancient one. Where is the primary account that you referred to in the article? If it is not provided within two days time, I'm going to remove that part in accordance with WP:V and WP:NOENG. I've been asking for the quote from Barkhudariants for several days now. And also, a primary account is not sufficient anyway, it must be backed up by a reliable secondary source. Grandmaster 21:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I have been following this talks, and think the question is simple. Shusha was an old fortress, with a village/town bolted on, as usually is the case with so many fortified towns around the world. Many times it was destroyed, and rebuilt. Mirza Jevanshir perhaps talks about one occasion when it was destroyed, and then rebuilt by his patron Panakh Jevanshir. So, technically Jevanshir may be wright but historically he is wrong because of so much evidence countering his account. By the way, I know that Makar Barkhudarian mentioned Manuel from the town of Shushi in his book "Artsakh." He writes:

Աւետարան փոքրադիր, թղթյա, Հայոց թուին ՊՀԷ (i.e. 1428), գրիչ Մանաէլ, ի Շուշու ավան, ի յերկիրս Աղուանից, վիճակն Քթիսոյ. Bishop Makar Barkhudariants, Artsakh, Baku, Aror, 1895, chapter Shushi

Barkhudariants in that chapter on Shushi lists churches, monasteries, as well as manuscripts and relics found at these churches. Translation from the Gospel's diary found at the Aguletsots church (destroyed by Azerbaijanis in 1920): "Gospel [is] small, made of paper, year 1428 of the Armenian calendar (i.e.ՊՀԷ), scribe Manuel from the country of Aghvank, town of Shushi, [assigned to place?] Ktis. Most likely it is the same Matenadaran manuscript 8211 by the same scribe mentioned in Khachikyan's reference provided by Хаченци. The only difference is that Manuel from the village of Shushi in Khachikyan's piece was assigned to the Amaras monastery, and in Barkhudariants' reference he is mentioned as re-assigned to the Ktish Monastery. This may be unsurprising because Manuel's lived through the invasion of the region by the Tamerlane, which is well described in literature. Tamerlane is known to have destroyed the Amaras monastery. So, Manuel from Shushi had to flee to Ktish? I least I provided one direct quotation. Will include it into the text. Zimmarod (talk) 01:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

...almost forgot: in this document scribe Manuel mentions "town" (ավան) of Shushi not village(գուիղ), supporting the argument about the existence of the urban settlement there in 1428. Zimmarod (talk) 01:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

That seems to be also far-stretched. From what I see the common Armenian word for "town" (and "city") is Քաղաք (k’aghak’i) and this is what stands for "town" in Armenian Wikipedia. The word Manuel reportedly used, ավան (avan), yields me "township", "village", "borough", suggesting it was a small locality back then at best. Also, even though the article quotes Panin and Suvorov to claim that the fortress of Shusha appeared before Panah, Bournoutian's quote from Iranica provided above contradicts it. So I also wonder whether the claim referenced to Bournoutian saying that the "fort of Shusha was mentioned as a linchpin of one of East Armenian military districts" is actually correct. If yes, then he rather obviously contradicts himself. Brandmeister^talk 14:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Zimmarod, thank you for the quote. Bournoutian's views on the timing of Shushi's foundation have evolved, it happens very often in the academic field. That's how scholarship differs from Ziya Buniyatov styled " histo(e)rical science." And please do not teach us all what means what in Armenian! :))) ahh, I see now ... "township" is not enough of a city :) LOL Hablabar (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

It is absolutely not clear from this source that it refers to the town and not the village. According to the rules, we should not make our own interpretations of the primary sources, that would be an original research. WP:PRIMARY holds that "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". Now, is there a secondary source that supports the claim that this primary source refers to the town of Shusha, and not the village by that name? If not, then we will have to remove Barkhudariants. Grandmaster 19:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't it already decided the sttlement was destroyed several times and then rebuilt as a village, town, or city, depending on the number of people still living there? --HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Decided by whom and when? Grandmaster 20:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

As for Bournoutian, his latest opinion appears to be that published in Iranica, as he published his translation of Mirza Jamal in 1993, and the Iranica article is from 1997, updated in 2011. He even cites his own translation of Mirza Jamal among the sources he used for Iranica article. Grandmaster 20:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Bournoutian's latest opinion from his book on Armenian-Russian documentation, which is post Iranica and post everything else. Second Barkhudariants is a secondary source for this case. He included this in the chapter on the city of Shusha (as I understand Zimmarod), and not in the comments in the chapter on the village of Shosh. Barkhudaryants is the one who knows the difference. Hablabar (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Bournoutian updated his Iranica article in 2011, so it is the latest source. As for Barkhudariants, he is a primary source, and his account should be interpreted by a professional modern historian. But even if we assume that he is a secondary source, such a source from the 19th century is outdated anyway. Grandmaster 21:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Grandmaster inadvertently drove himself into the trap of denial of his own argument. "But even if we assume that he is a secondary source, such a source from the 19th century is outdated anyway." So, let's dismiss Mirza J. Jevanshir then, since he is a secondary source "from the 19th century" who according to this logic "is outdated anyway." LOL. But this is not funny. Bad faith? You are supposed to work to build consensus, my friend, and instead u give laughable excuses to push your POV. We hard that a hundred times already. Hablabar (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Mirza Javanshir's account is confirmed in other sources, whereas the 15th century version comes solely from Armenian sources and to my knowledge is not attested anywhere else. Anyway, to resolve all this I propose to: a) begin the lead section with facts that are basically undisputed and where the sources do not conflict, i.e. that "from the mid-18th century to 1822 Shusha was the capital of the Karabakh Khanate" and so on; b) begin the foundation section with something like "Various accounts about the origin of Shusha exist". Thoughts? Brandmeister^talk 10:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Only the fact that the sources are Armenian does not mean they are less authoritative than the foreign sources. In particular, Khachikyans book has been cited in many foreign sources. So, the fact that Shushi existed (as a settlement or town, doesn't really matter) in XV c is basically also undisputed. Хаченци (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

What matters is whether reliable foreign authors support the 15th century version of Shusha, not whether Khachikyan's book per se is quoted by them, in accordance with WP:REDFLAG. Brandmeister^talk 23:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Хаченци brings out a valid point. WP:REDFLAG has nothing to do with this case, see what it describes. Even Azerbaijani authors know that Shushi was founded in the Middle Ages. See source: «Доклады» Том 37, Выпуски 7-12 ; стр. 84 // Изд-во Академии наук Азербайджанской ССР. Text: Однако крепость Боят оказалась слабозащищенной. Панах-хан перенес свою резиденцию в урочище Шахбулаг, расположенное у подножия Хачинского холма. Но и это место оказалось в климатическом и военно-стратегическом отношениях невыгодным. Представители карабахской знати, созванные на совет, говорили хану: «…наше государство имеет немало заядлых врагов, было бы благоразумно найти более защищенное и неприступное место». В 1751 г. закладывается новая крепость крепость — Панах-абад, окруженная скалой и высокими стенами. Новая резиденция быстро выросла в экономический центр Карабахского хамства и стала одним из крупных торговых и ремесленных городов Азербайджана. На развалинах древнего города Шуши, разрушенного монголами, возникла новая Шуша. So, even Azerbaijanis in the Soviet times acknowledged that - I took it from Russian wiki. Hablabar (talk) 23:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Who is the author of that piece? When was it published? I highly doubt its authenticity, because it contradicts itself. It says that a brand new fortress was built, but then that it was built at the location of the old town. Grandmaster 00:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

In addition, the pre-Panah history of Shushi is in Levon Chorbajian, Patrick Donabédian, Claude Mutafian. The Caucasian knot: the history & geopolitics of Nagorno-Karabagh, p. 74: «Panah brought Melik Shahnazar into his service and installed himself in the melik’s domain of Varanda, forcing him to cede the fortress of Shosh, the future city of Shushi or Shusha.» Hablabar (talk) 00:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Chorbaijan et al is not a reliable source, it is an Armenian propaganda source. I can quote a million of similar sources from Azerbaijani authors. As for Mirza Jamal, he is not a secondary source, like Hablabar claims. It is a primary source, but there are tons of secondary sources referring to him, so there cannot be any doubts about the accuracy of the interpretation of that and other similar sources (i.e. Mirza Adigezal, Bakikhanov, Raffi, etc). The problem with Barkhudariants is that the quote provided above cannot be found anywhere in that source, which is available in full here: [10] Can you provide a link to that text at the aforementioned website? Grandmaster 00:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The link is for a differetn book ("Artsakh") and not for "History of Albania". Хаченци (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

And who says that "Caucasian Knot," a widely-quoted, Western academic piece is an Armenian propaganda source? I think Mirza J. Jevanshir is an Azerbaijani propaganda source - he was directly motivated to twist facts and manipulate evidence. Hablabar (talk) 00:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

That book received criticism for the lack of neutrality, and in general Azerbaijani and Armenian authors are not third party in this matter. But that does not apply to the primary sources, created at the time when Azerbaijan and Armenia did not exist. Mirza Jamal could not have been an Azerbaijani propaganda source for a simple reason that the was no state by the name of Azerbaijan in the 19th century. Grandmaster 00:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

What criticism, from whom? Why are they Armenian? Mirza Jamal is not an Azerbaijani propaganda source in the modern sense but he was a Jevanshir spokesperson, an advocate for the Turkic (mis)conquest of Karabakh, and continued denial of land and title rights to Armenian noble families. Hablabar (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

What Mirza Jamal says is supported by Armenian sources as well (Raffi and Nersesov). And those were enemies of Javanshirs. You can read the same in Persian sources, as attested here by Alborz. And how all those 3 authors are not Armenian? Chorbaijan is a well known Armenian propagandist. I quoted the criticism of this work at another article's talk, and you were there too. Grandmaster 01:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't remember, so I repeat my question about "Armenian propagandists." All the sources pointing to Panah seem to go back to Jevanshir. Hablabar (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussed here: [11] with a banned sock and later at other talk pages. And no, not all the sources are linked to Javanshir. Nersesov certainly is not. Plus you can see that 18th century version is accepted by all encyclopedias, including such authoritative as Encyclopedia of Islam. Grandmaster 01:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

... what I see about Chorbajian etc. is the only "criticism" from someone (Turkish?) language teacher (?) from some place in the middle of the US? There are some quotations but they point to webpages that are not available. Hablabar (talk) 02:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Why being a Turkish is a problem, and being an Armenian is not? And what's wrong with the middle of US? She is as good as the source she discusses, considering that your source is written by a journalist, a diplomat and a mathematician. Grandmaster 00:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of Chorbajian and his co-authors, what they claim about Shusha is just a point of view. Even some modern Armenian authors suggest the contrary: "The centre of this khanate, established by Panah Ali Khan (a Turk and chief of the Jevanshir tribe), later came to be known as the fortress town of Shushi or Shusha" (Ohannes Geukjian, Ethnicity, Nationalism and Conflict in the South Caucasus: Nagorno-Karabakh and the Legacy of Soviet Nationalities Policy, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2011, p. 38). Varazdat Harutyunyan also acknowledged the same, indicating this is the mainstream view: "The emergence of Shusha is usually associated with the construction of the unassailable residence-fortress of Panah-khan in 1751" ("Возникновение Шуши обычно связывают со строительством неприступной крепости-резиденции Панах-хана в 1751", Каменная летопись армянского народа, Советакан грох, 1985, p. 148). The Pre-Panah accounts may stay in the foundation section, but, as it was already suggested above, they should be treated in accordance with WP:WEIGHT. I think it could be an acceptable resolution. Brandmeister^talk 14:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that both versions should be presented in accordance with their weight. You cannot include a statement in the lead that presents a minority view as a fact, that contradicts the rules. I think it is time that we ask the wiki community to look into this dispute, and pass its judgment. Otherwise this discussion is not going anywhere. Grandmaster 00:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I doubt there is such a thing as "version." Shusha was an ancient settlement known at least from the Mongol period which was destroyed and rebuilt many times. Armenian archaeologists found 8th century khachkars in Shusha [12]. The most extensive known rebuilding was undertaken by the Panahid dynasty in the 18th century, and that's the reason why there are so many references to that event. The Jevanshir/Panahid (re)building can be mentioned since they had built the foundation for what became the future city of Shusha. But the pre-Jevanshir evidence is even more important because Jevanshirs' Shusha was an episode of about 50 years but pre-Jevanshir history of this place spans 1000 years or more (as pretty much everything in Artsakh). Hablabar (talk) 01:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

This talk is losing its meaning. I cant imagine a constructive debate, if our opponents are claiming, that Western scholars should be considered as Armenian propaganda source, if they have Armenian roots. Хаченци (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

this is a serious concern. Hablabar (talk) 15:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I propose to take this to WP:FTN to receive community's input and suggested resolution. Brandmeister^talk 15:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

We still all waiting for the explanation of why renowned well-quoted and widely-endorsed Western scholars are "Armenian propaganda." Hablabar (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I really wonder how those scholars are widely endorsed? I demonstrated criticism of their work, which you tried to dismiss on the basis of the ethnicity of the critic. But as Brand says, it is all beyond the point. What matters here is that there are two versions of the foundation, one is generally accepted, and the other one is marginal. What we have now is that the marginal version is asserted as a fact, and the generally accepted version is not even mentioned in the lead. That is totally unacceptable, and I agree that it should be taken to WP:FTN or any other appropriate forum to have the wiki community input on this. Grandmaster 00:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess, it is not difficult to check the academical positions those "Armenian propagandists" are holding. Criticism? By whom? On which basis? Is the criticizer as good as the authors? How can one explain, that only a Turkish author criticizes them? Хаченци (talk) 14:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

One version generally accepted? Hmmmm, what exactly you mean by "generally accepted"? Is it generally accepted, that there was no settlement Shushi prior to Panah? My impression is that it is accepted that Panah founded/strenghtened the fortress, but I don't think it is generally accepted he founded the city itself. Хаченци (talk) 14:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Patrick Donabedian, who wrote the section on the ancient history, is a diplomat. He is considered a nationalist author by David Laitin and Ronald Grigor Suny:

The modern discourse of the nation confers upon national communities the right to political control over the specific territories that they inhabit, as well as those contested (like Karabakh with its overwhelming majority of ethnic Armenians, and Nakhichevan with its overwhelming majority of ethnic Muslims). This discourse is based in a narrative of the nation's antiquity and its people's (nearly) continuous presence in a historic "homeland." Even as it proposes rights and justice for oppressed nationalities, in fact the national discourse creates new problems of making political and cultural boundaries commensurate -- as Woodrow Wilson learned at the end of World War I. This is especially true in the Caucasus, where much of its history has been one of migration, intermingling of different religious and linguistic groups, not to mention overlapping polities and contested sovereignties from ancient to modern times. Yet nationalists persistently draw harder and clearer boundaries between their own people and those living closest to them (who share much of each other's culture), to obscure distinctions within their own nation and to exaggerate differences with their neighbors. For example, Patrick Donabedian, a French diplomat in Erevan, quotes the Greek geographer Strabo, who attests that by the second century BC the entire population of Greater Armenia (including today's Karabakh) spoke Armenian, implying that today's Armenians are the direct descendants of those speakers.(1) On the other side, A. Abbasov and A. Memedov of the Azerbaijan Academy of Sciences write that the early settlers were Caucasian Albanian tribes, precursors of today's Azeris, and that the Armenians, unlike most of the other minorities, do not have a long history in Azerbaijan, even in Karabakh.(2) They too select cultural specks in the past in order to write an exclusive, continuous national history.

(1) Patrick Donabedian, "The History of Karabagh from Antiquity to the Twentieth Century," in Levon Chorbajian, Patrick Donabedian and Claude Mutafian, The Caucasian Knot.' The History and Geo-Politics of Nagorno-Karabagh (London and New Jersey: Zed Books, 1994), p. 53.

Laitin, David D.; Ronald Suny. "Armenia and Azerbaijan: Thinking a way out of Karabakh." Middle East Policy. 1999. HighBeam Research. (November 13, 2013). [13]

And yes, it is generally accepted that there was no settlement before the town of Shusha was founded in 1752. Check all the major encyclopedias. Grandmaster 23:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

False: He is a leading member (director) of Université de Provence, Département d'Etudes Moyen-Orientales.

Sorry, but this text did not say anything to me. If one of the statements of a scholar is described as nationalist, it still does not mean that the scholar itself should be ignored completely. And what has Donabedian to do with this discussion? XV c is not ancient history. Хаченци (talk) 10:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Any link to major encyclopedia where it is clearly written that there was no settlement before the town of Shusha was founded in 1752? Хаченци (talk) 10:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Islam states that the town was founded in 1752 by Panah khan. Grandmaster 00:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

And Donabedian is an art historian, not a historian: [14] In fact, all 3 authors are not professional historians, experts on the ancient history (a sociologist, an art historian and a mathematician). In particular, the author of the chapter on the history of Karabakh Donabedian is an expert on the Armenian art, but not the ancient history. Grandmaster 01:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Laitin and Suny's paper is controversial and is usually dismissed as an emotionally charged anti-nationalist attack because of the authors' well-expressed aversion to the subject of ethnicity. "The durable legacy of the Soviet experience for those emerging from the grip of Soviet power was that it became almost impossible to imagine politics that was not infected by ethnicity." Once you decide that ethnicity is an infection, all other arguments about this subject cannot be taken seriously. The paper is replete with statements that border on the idiotic: "In earlier centuries, the differences between ethnic and religious communities were less sharp." Really??? [proto]-Azerbaijanis and Turks in the past were sworn enemies, killing each other in numerous Ottoman-Persian wars. So, in the past differences between these ethnic and religious communities were more not less sharp. Un-scholarly sweeping generalizations discount this text an politically-motivated out-pours of anti-nationalist entrepreneurs. Hablabar (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

...Plus, "The Caucasian Knot" is quoted in as many as 1000 books. Also, Laitin and Suny contend: "For example, Patrick Donabedian, a French diplomat in Erevan, quotes the Greek geographer Strabo, who attests that by the second century BC the entire population of Greater Armenia (including today's Karabakh) spoke Armenian, implying that today's Armenians are the direct descendants of those speakers." Ok, can anyone please give me any source credibly explaining why today's Armenians may not be the direct descendants of those speakers??????????????????? Suny is a good scholar but Karabakh is not the area of his expertise at all. Hablabar (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Laitin is a Stanford professor. And there are just a couple of dozen of actual references to this book, not a thousand, and many of those refer to this book to demonstrate the Armenian POV. As for the quote in question, the critics mean the same thing as Schnirelman did when referring to the Armenian claims that since Strabo refers to Armenian as being spoken in the entire territory of Armenia at the time, then that territory was populated exclusively by Armenians. In fact, it is the same as saying that since Russian was spoken on the entire territory of the USSR, all the people who lived there were Russian. It is just a nationalistic interpretation of the historical accounts. Now you wanted criticism of Donabedian (who btw is a former diplomat and an art historian by education), you've got it. Let's get back to the matter of how the different views should be presented. You cannot single out a view that you like, ignoring its weight and omitting all the others, and state it as a fact in the lead and in the text. That is against the rules. If you disagree, we should seek a third opinion. Grandmaster 00:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow, it turns out that an art historian, who is expertized in Armenien medieval art and holds a director position of a whole faculty of a french university is not a reliable source in Armenian history? And Laitin, who is a professor of political science and has nothing to do with history an/or Armenian studies can be considered as a good source for critics of Donabedians historical works? I am speechless. Хаченци (talk) 01:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Being an expert in medieval art does not make one an expert in ancient history. Those are different disciplines. And Laitin and Suny (a professional historian) are sufficiently qualified to tell the objective historical study from a nationalist one. Grandmaster 01:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't and wouldn't call Donabedian an expert of ancient history, but he is still a scholar of historical sciences. Whereas Laitin has nothing to do with historical science, he is a political scientist. He is absolutely not qualified for criticizing any historical study. Хаченци (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Art history and historical science are not the same thing. Laitin is a very prominent scholar, and he wrote his article in cooperation with a professional historian. Grandmaster 23:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Since the pre-1750s version is still currently in the lead, as a temporary solution, I'd reiterate my proposal to begin the lead's second paragraph with "From the mid-18th century to 1822 Shusha was the capital of the Karabakh Khanate" and to omit the disputed part there while the dispute resolution is in progress (the foundation section would remain as it is). Grandmaster has agreed, what about you? Brandmeister^talk 15:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

---

I think the best thing right now would be for all the users to marshal all the most important and pertinent sources (primary and secondary) and present (say, in a table) what they say. Obviously we have two sides to this story: one that says that Shushi was founded in the mid-1700s and another which says that it was established much earlier. I have a copy of Samvel Karapetyan's book on the fortresses of Syunik and Artsakh region, where he also contends that Shushi was founded at an earlier date. I recall reading a chapter in the fourth volume of the History of the Armenian People (Erevan, 1972), where it is mentioned in a letter sent by Avan Yuzbashi (ca. early 1700s). I'll try to dig up and translate those sources to present here, though I wish I had more time to devote to this topic.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Samvel Karapetyan is not a third party source. Just another nationalist author from the region. We need third party sources, not connected to any sides of the dispute. But the main issue is not what people in Armenia or Azerbaijan say, as obviously they say a lot of different things. The main issue here is that the recent additions violate WP:NPOV. The version of the early foundation is presented as a fact right in the lead, while the generally accepted version is not even mentioned there. The same with the section about the foundation. The info is not presented neutrally. We cannot claim as a fact what some sources claim, if there are sources that state otherwise, and especially if sources stating otherwise have a wider acceptance. That is against the wikipedia rules. So what I was proposing was to bring the article in compliance with the rules, and present the info in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:Weight. Why this should be a problem? And I support Brand's proposal. Grandmaster 23:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Most of his most comments are relatively tame, compared to some of the other inflammatory language that is bandied about in the region. But anyways, you have to be careful with specious reasoning such as "We cannot claim as a fact what some sources claim, if there are sources that state otherwise, and especially if sources stating otherwise have a wider acceptance." Just because something has wide acceptance doesn't mean it gets privileges. Until recently, mostly everyone thought Christianity became the state religion of Armenia in 301, whereas scholarship has now demonstrated the actual date to be 314. De Waal and others may not understand Armenian (or x language for that matter), which is most probably why they did not cite other sources like Barkhudariants, letters and manuscript colophons from earlier years. Information like that should be juxtaposed to the "scholarly consensus." Akin to something like, "Most sources date Shusha's founding to 1752 by x....However, medieval Armenian sources make mention of a village/fortress of Shushi in 1722. In a letter written in xxxx, x says that..." Etc.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's the proof that the Armenian sources mentioned the village of Shushikend, and not the town of Shusha, and it comes from none other than George Bournoutian:

The village of Shushik’end (Shosh, Shoshi) is located in the Askeran region of Mountainous Karabagh. The village has ruins dating to the 13th century and is mentioned in the 14-15th centuries. It has 2 churches, one of which was built in 1655, the other in 1454. The Armenian school was built there in 1894; see Hakobyan, VI, p. 163.

George A. Bournoutian, The 1823 Russian Survey of the Karabagh Province: A Primary Source on the Demography and Economy of Karabagh in the Early 19th Century, Issue 18 of Armenian Studies Series (Mazda Publishers, 2011).

The Armenian primary sources could not have mentioned two different Shusha's in the 14-15th centuries, so this puts to rest questionable interpretations of the primary sources by wiki editors. And according to the rules, we must quote the sources according to their weight. The early foundation of the town at present does not have more weight than the traditional one, so we must follow the prevailing scholarly opinion, and provide the minority view as well. Scholarly consensus may change in the future, like in the example that you cited, but at present it is what it is, and it should be presented accordingly. Barkhudariants is a questionable source, because there's no evidence that he referred to the town and not the village. Other sources supporting early foundation need to be presented as an alternative version, following the prevailing one. Grandmaster 00:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I see no reasons of this conclusion from the passage above. Please go back and read again the arguments presented about the antiquity of Shusha, including those coming from the Azerbaijani academy of sciences. You repeat your POV over, over and over again - this contributes nothing to the productivity of talks. Also, read what MarshallBagramyan suggested regarding the properly creative rewording of contentious issues in the text. Start crafting a consensual, synthetic version of the new text, and reach consensus with other discussants. Now, about Patrick Donabedian: he was unconvincingly labeled by Suny & Laitin, who are not specialists in ancient history, label ethnicity as infection, and made a laughable observation on the demography of the region; if we judge sources by partisan and unscholarly labeling, let's completely exclude Jevanshirs and their "historians," who were labeled "unimportant," "thievs," "brigands," and "caravan robbers." Hablabar (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Since when do you trust Azerbaijani academy of sciences? If I start referring to them, you will be first to object. And no, I do not repeat the same thing, I cite new sources every time, which you keep on rejecting for no good reason. You reject Laitin for not being a historian (even though his co-author is a professional historian Suny), while ignoring the fact that Donabedian is not a historian either. If we do not use non-historians, then we don't, and that includes Donabedian. As for Javanshirs, I see no parallels between them and the modern author Donabedian. I don't see how chroniclers Mirza Jamal or Mirza Adigezal could be "thievs," "brigands," and "caravan robbers." Such claims require strong evidence, and to the best of my knowledge none of the aforementioned authors had ever engaged in such activity. As we discussed before, Mirza Jamal and others wrote at the time when there were no states of Azerbaijan and Armenia, and thus cannot be accused of promoting state propaganda or something of the kind. And to this day they are considered the most important sources on the history of the region, so much that even Bournoutian felt the need to translate them into English. Why translate unimportant sources? As for the antiquity of Shusha, I think the quote from Bournoutian clarifies everything. You claim that Barkhudariants mentions in the 15th century the town of Shusha, and not the village. How do you know that he does not mean the village? Bournoutian makes it clear that the village was mentioned in the 14-15th centuries, and therefore it is evident that the sources referring to the place by the name of Shusha were referring to the village, and not the town. Surely, a small fortress in the 14th century could not have been a place where calligraphers produced gospels. In any case, you need a secondary source to interpret the primary one, and therefore we need a good secondary source to explain what exactly Barkhudariants meant. Coming to the text of the article, I suggest we remove foundation issue from the lead altogether, and in the relevant section present all the important sources. From what I see, all the local sources, Azerbaijani and Armenian alike, support the 18th century foundation, and so do major encyclopedia. And then we have sources like Suvorov, who never ever traveled to the region, but who claim earlier foundation. So I suggest we present the traditional version first, by mentioning which sources support it, and then present the alternative version by mentioning the main sources in its support. Barkhudariants should go until we find a decent secondary source for his interpretation. Grandmaster 01:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Bournoutian mentions the village/town of Shoshi/Shoshikend, while the sources I've referred to unequivocally use Shushi. I still have to take a look at Barkhudariants' book and see what wording he uses. But are you sure it's not you who is conflating the two localities, Grandmaster?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Which ones exactly are referring to the town? I think it is obvious that if the village (also known as Shosh and Shoshi according to Bournoutian) was mentioned in the 14-15th centuries, then the sources mentioning the locality by the name of Shosh/Shoshi are the ones mentioning it. I don't see any sources saying that there were 2 places by that name before the 18th century. Grandmaster 00:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the Azerbaijani academy of sciences should be dismissed as an unreliable source. However, on rear occasions, where Azerbaijani nationalist POV is not pushed, this sources can be of interest, as in this case. Now on the Jevanshirs. Although a primary source, the Jevanshirs are tainted by feudal bias that favors myths and disinformation supporting a particular feudal political agenda of their clan. The Jevanshirs should be excluded; their bad reputation is an extra argument. For comparison, Movses Khorenatsi is great source on Armenian history. However, his claim that the Bagratuni dynasty originates from the Bible's King David should be dismissed as because it promoted his sponsor, Prince Sahak Bagratuni. Conflict of interests is a serious source of POV, per WP:CONFLICT. Hablabar (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

To put it shortly, since the Javanshirs account is supported by the majority of reliable sources, I don't see a compelling reason to exclude it. It's not Wikipedia's business to make a revolution in the academia and promote a view, not reflected in the majority of RS. Still, we're not arguing for the removal, but for treating that claim in accordance with WP:WEIGHT and once we agree on that, I would be happy. We can simply put the 1750s version first in the foundation section, which could be another solution. Brandmeister^talk 19:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, we should treat the sources according to WP:Weight. I don't see that academic sources question the reliability of Mirza Jamal and others, unlike Khorenatsi, who is generally not trusted as a reliable source by most Western academics. And as I understand, Hablabar supports the Azerbaijani academia on rare occasions when their views happen to coincide, but that is not the way it works. The sources cannot be used selectively, they are either trusted, or not. So I propose the following. 1) Since the majority of reliable sources supports the 1750s foundation, this version should come first. And an alternative version must come second. 2) The lead should not mention foundation. If we must mention foundation in the lead, again both versions must be mentioned according to their weight. Are there any objections to this? Please provide your opinions. If we are unable to build consensus here, we need to ask for the community help. Grandmaster 00:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Chronological sequence is the best and it should be preserved. In a footnote we can discuss the difference in opinions. I personally see no clear signs that the foundation of the city in the 1750s is questioned in the discussion. Armenians founded the settlement and fortress of Shushi and Phanagh Khan Javansheer re-set it as a future city, and rebuilt the fortress. The formula should use this guideline. The sentence "From the mid-18th century to 1822 Shusha was the capital of the Karabakh Khanate" I suggest to modify as "In the mid-18th century the settlement and the fortress were rebuilt and to 1822 Shusha was the capital of the Karabakh Khanate." In the footnote or later in the text in a separate paragraph show that the evidence is contradictory, one source says it existed for centuries, the other says it was built on a desolate place, blah, blah. Zimmarod (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is another source mentioning that Melik Shahnazar gave his fortress to Panagh: "Совет мелика Адама, мелика Овсепа и мелика Есаи был един, но среди них раскольничал мелик Шахназар, который был мужем хитрым, маловерным и негодным к добрым делам, коварным и предающим братьев. В Карабах приходит некое племя Джваншир, словно бездомные скитальцы на земле, чинящее разбой и кочующее в шатрах, главарю которых имя было Панах-хан. Коварный во злых делах мелик Шахназар призвал его себе в помощь, по собственной воле подчинился ему и передал свою крепость» [15], p. 13. Also: "«Шахназар, мелик Варанды, страшась союза между Меликом Чараберда Адамом и Меликом Гюлистана Овсепом, сам подружился с Панах-ханом, отдал ему свое поселение Шушинскую крепость, а также свою дочь в жены». As it an be seen, Shusha was a fortress and a settlement at the same time. [16], p. 14. Zimmarod (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Great info, thanks. Hablabar (talk) 03:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

That really changes nothing. If there are two different versions, you cannot claim one as a fact. And the version that is more widely accepted gets more coverage, per WP:Weight. Quote from the rules: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Now, how come that the intro claims as a fact pre-1750 foundation and makes no mention of the generally accepted 1750s foundation? Is that in line with the rules? Grandmaster

The sources provided by Hablabar and Zimmarod have no less weigh than sources cited for the "1752" version, thus the latter cannot be claimed as a "generally accepted view" and the former as a marginal one.Roses&guns (talk) 10:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, the sources about the 1752 are in a simple numerical majority (including both English and non-English encyclopedias tackling this question) and I think it's safe to write so. Brandmeister^talk 14:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Roses&guns. Simply math does not apply here, especially because I see no contradiction. See that I don't disagree that the ruler of the K.Khanate laid foundations for the future city of Shusha. So, the settlement was established as an urban(izing) settlement - city - in the 18th century. No contradiction in reality. Yes, there are those sources which claim that there was only grass on the Shusha plateau when re-building began, but those sources are in clear minority, but they may not after all, be as contradictory was they look given that the settlement was destroyed and rebuilt many times. Hablabar (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

As a side note, I recommend Roses&guns to discuss the order of Shusha/Shushi in the lead before reverting, especially if he believes that "the title of the article should also be a subject of debate". Taking turns to revert is counter-productive and will lead you nowhere. Brandmeister^talk 20:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Once again, you cannot claim as a fact pre-1752 foundation of the town, if the majority of secondary sources says otherwise. It violates the wikipedia policies. Also, yet another third party source attesting to 1752 foundation is Columbia Encyclopedia: [17] Grandmaster 22:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

... Yes, but in fact few people including myself dispute that the city was being established when the fort/settlement became the capital of the khanate, hence my wording that blends both narratives. But you refuses to cooperate, and continue talking about some "majority views" as if they contradict what all participants, with the exception of one, have been saying. Hablabar (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

You cannot blend mutually exclusive claims, that would be an original research. If the city was built on an empty spot, it could not have existed before that. Grandmaster 20:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Wait, wait, wait. That the city was supposedly built on an empty spot is a clear minority view. Dont confuse or equal it up with the claim that the city was established by K.Khanate's rulers. Two very different things. Many sources indeed say that the city was established in mid 18th c., which is fine with me, but this does not mean necessarily that these sources support the claim that it was created from scratch. Neither do they deny the claim that there could have been settlements on the Shusha rock that were destroyed or abandoned. These sources simply attest to the emergence of an urban settlement. Some of the sources just stop there, while others add that there was a fort, with a small town or village on the side on to support it. Hablabar (talk) 23:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Not so. The sources that say that the city was founded in 1752 do not say that there was anything at that spot before. That is your personal interpretation. You cannot make your personal interpretation of sources, or combine them to "reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", that is a violation of WP:Synth. That is what you are proposing, to make a synthesis, or as your say "blend" sources, and the rules do not allow us to do that. We must strictly follow what the sources say, and if they say that the city was founded in 1752, then that is exactly what they mean. No combining or "blending" is possible. Grandmaster 00:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

No, it is you who is a violation of WP:Synth and WP:OR. The majority of sources that claim that Shusha was "established" in 1752 talk about the city, not a settlement or fort+village etc., not necessarily implying that the city was created from scratch. Only a small number of sources claim that the city was built in such a way, and one-half of these minority sources such as the Jevanshir historians are highly questionable. It is you who is making your personal interpretation of sources. Hablabar (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The majority of sources that say Shusha was founded in 1752 say nothing about the city being built on a place of an existing settlement. Therefore, you cannot add anything to what they say. Most of the sources say that Shusha was founded in 1752, and this is what we should write with a reference to them, as we cannot "imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". You cannot interpret the sources to support the claim that there was something at that location before, because the sources do not say so. So no WP:SYNTH, no combining and no blending, that is against the rules. The sources must be quoted exactly as they are, without any combinations, modifications, interpretations, etc. Grandmaster 20:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Your idea of "majority of sources" are "The Encyclopaedia of Islam" (obvious bias) and Soviet sources, which are infamous for falsifying history, in this case intentionally faking Shushi's history to justify giving it to Azerbaijan SSR despite an Armenian majority. The header claims the city was founded in the 1700's, while the rest of the article proves it existed for hundreds of years earlier. You've greatly damaged the credibility of this article. --HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Why the Encyclopaedia of Islam should be biased? It is an encyclopedia about the Islamic world, not a Muslim or an Islamic encyclopedia, and is written by the best Western experts. In addition, Columbia encyclopedia and Iranica are neutral sources, and they say the same thing. Also, if sources differ on something, you must provide both opinions with giving more coverage to the majority view, according to the rules. And finally, you are banned from this topic, and should not be posting here until your ban expires. Grandmaster 20:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The problematic sentences in the lede are not worded the way sources word them. As Wikipedia editors, we cannot say that a "majority" or a "minority" of sources say this or that about a certain claim. In order to do so, we would have to provide a source that actually says that the majority of the sources make such claims. If no such source is provided, then it is nothing less than WP:OR. Proudbolsahye (talk) 02:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the view endorsed by virtually all encyclopedias tackling this issue, as well as Russian Academy of Sciences, see the list at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Shusha. And how many non-Armenian secondary or tertiary sources say the contrary? Brandmeister^talk 09:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem with the current state of the article is that the minority view is given equal validity and presented along with the commonly accepted mainstream scholarship. Moreover, the minority view even gets unproportionally larger coverage in the article, with a strong reliance on primary sources. That is not in line with WP:VALID. While we can clearly see that all major encyclopaedias and mainstream scholarship support the 1752 foundation, more than half of the section on foundation is dedicated to the minority view. WP:Weight requires us to determine the weight of each viewpoint, and it is quite obvious that the secondary scholarly sources support the mid-18thh century foundation. The wording on minority and majority view could be improved, and we can discuss it here, but overall presentation of the material needs to be changed to properly reflect the opinion of the mainstream scholarship on the subject. Grandmaster 19:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

We both agree that the wording needs to be improved. As I mentioned earlier, the current wording doesn't align to what the sources say. No source, including the ones provided, claim that these particular sources represent the mainstream, majority or minority view. In fact, that's not what should be discussed in the lead of the article. So I propose something like this:

The town was founded as a capital of the Karabakh khanate in 1752 on an area that has served as a town and an ancient fortress in the Armenian principality of Varanda during the Middle Ages and through the 18th century.

With this proposal, the sentence presents the towns foundation by Panakh Khan as a fact rather than a viewpoint while maintaining the current order in which they are presented. It also refrains from using the phrase "According to..." which is always good since that's not the type of terminology usually found in leads. I haven't really analyzed the arguments as to why the sentence should be positioned this way, but I can see that Hablabar (talk · contribs), Zimmarod (talk · contribs) and Roses&guns (talk · contribs) may have something else in mind. Also, just a side note, I suggest removing the citations once an agreement is reached since citing in the lead is often discouraged according to the MOS. Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

That is not acceptable because it presents as a fact the existence of Shusha before 1752, which contradicts the majority of sources, and those primary sources that say the town was founded in 1752 on an empty spot. You cannot present a viewpoint not supported by the majority of sources as an undisputed fact. If there are different viewpoints, they should be presented in the article in accordance to their weight, in accordance with the rules. Merging sources to reach a certain conclusion is a violation of WP:Synth, and we cannot do that. Both versions of foundation need to be presented according to their weight. Grandmaster 20:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't like Grandmaster's categorical pose and his refusal to cooperate. I think Proudbolsahye's suggestion is reasonable. Zimmarod (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I cannot agree to violation of the wiki rules and original research. But I proposed to describe both points of views according to their weight, as the wiki rules require. That I think is a solution that should be acceptable to everyone. Grandmaster 19:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Since we may never agree on the issue of weight, I just suggested a formula that goes beyond the debate on weight. Hablabar (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I propose making a slight adjustment:

The town was founded as a capital of the Karabakh khanate in 1752 on an area that is believed to have served as a town and an ancient fortress in the Armenian principality of Varanda during the Middle Ages and through the 18th century.

...for now. The current wording just looks really off. Mind you, this is not the wording I agree with, but it's just a step closer to solving the whole "according to this" and "according to that" or the "majority" and "minority" issue which, as I mentioned above, is not usually appropriate for leads. Whether my recent adjustment (believed to have) is suitable is up to you guys at this point. More importantly, I think it will lead to a more constructive discussion. At least I hope. Hablabar (talk · contribs)? Zimmarod (talk · contribs)? Roses&guns (talk · contribs)? Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

... since the Karabakh khanate is mentioned below the proposed sentence anyway, to avoid repetition I suggest:

The town was founded in 1752 on an area that is believed to have served as a town and an ancient fortress in the Armenian principality of Varanda during the Middle Ages and through the 18th century.

Zimmarod (talk · contribs)? Roses&guns (talk · contribs)? Proudbolsahye (talk · contribs)? Хаченци (talk · contribs)? Hablabar (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course this is not acceptable. Again asserting as a fact something that is supported by a minority of sources, which are all primary. You probably know that personal interpretation of primary sources is also considered an original research, so we should stick to what the majority of secondary academic sources say, and secondary academic sources in their overwhelming majority do not support the view that the area where the city was founded was inhabited before the 1752 foundation. Grandmaster 20:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

No, the Varanda argument is not presented as fact in the sentence. This is why I amended the initial proposal. "Believed" is different from "knowing". In fact, I don't even agree with the wording of my own proposal. But I do believe that the wording should be changed to get rid of the "according to" or "majority of sources" stuff which is never encouraged in the lead. Proudbolsahye (talk) 04:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm ok with the current lead - it's not the best, but is still better than that before. However, the foundation section really has some issues. Particularly, Kehva Chelebi's extensive quote should be treated in accordance with WP:PRIMARY and WP:QUOTEFARM, especially since it's not accompanied by Bournoutian's assessment. Same for Suvorov, his quote contains no assessment from secondary sources so far. I suspect that the same situation is in Tsagareli's "Грамота и гругие исторические документы XVIII столетия, относяшиеся к Грузии", but this should be checked, i.e. whether he just cites the primary source or also assesses it. Brandmeister^talk 10:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The present lead is more or less Ok, even though still not in line with WP:Weight. But the proposed edit is not. In addition to issues mentioned above, "believed to" is a WP:Weasel, and we do not need weasel wording in the lead. "Believed to" weasel wording creates an impression that it is generally believed that there was something in the place where the city was founded, but it is not so, quite the opposite, it is generally believed that there was nothing there before the foundation. And I agree with Brand, there are a lot of issues in the section about the foundation, including those that he cited. Grandmaster 18:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I dont think it is WP:Weasel. The quality of information in WP more often than not is not perfect at all, and WP does not discourage editors to reflect that limitation. Hablabar (talk) 20:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The rules are the rules. Whether the quality of information is perfect or not, weasel wording is not advised. Grandmaster 21:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Weasel words are unsourced attributions of claims, such as "Majority of sources say...", which are the very claims we are trying to fix here. There is not a source that actually states that those collection of sources provided in the mentioned sentence are in fact the majority of what academics say. The claim that the majority of academics state that the foundation was "built on empty spot" needs to be supported by an RS as well. Furthermore, there is not one source that places the other side of the argument (pre-1752 foundation) as a minority claim. We need to respect WP:Weasel when it suggests that "articles including weasel words should ideally be rewritten such that they are supported by reliable sources." So unsourced attributions to claims must go...otherwise, it is WP:OR. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You do not need a source to see what all major encyclopedias say about the foundation of the city. Here's a question. If the pre-1752 foundation is not a minority view, how many third party secondary sources support it? We cannot write an article on the basis of the primary sources only, that is not advised by the rules. And determining whether the view is a minority of a majority is something that we need to do ourselves. As Jimbo said: "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents. So who are the prominent adherents of the pre-1752 foundation? Note that we are not talking about primary sources, we are talking about modern academic sources with no bias in this issue. Now the words "majority" and "minority" were removed, but we still need to present different views about foundation in accordance with their weight. Grandmaster 00:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

This conversation has been running forever with the same arguments made again and again. This is depressing. Zimmarod (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

This is why I tried to get comments from uninvolved editors. We can try WP:RFC, if you wish. Grandmaster 23:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)