Talk:Shusha/Archive 5

Bournoutian
The article cites Bournoutian, saying that Shusha was "a town and an ancient fortress in the Armenian Principality of Varanda". However below, in Shusha the article says: "According to George A. Bournoutian commenting the chronicler, prior to construction of the fortress by Panah Ali khan there were no buildings at that location and it was used as a cropland and pasture by the people of the nearby village of Shoshi". That needs a clarification because Bournoutian's claims seem to contradict one another, this is also contradictory to what Mirza Jamal Javanshir Qarabaghi writes. Brandmeistertalk  11:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, there appears to be a contradiction in Bournoutian's statements, and an opinion of one author cannot be presented as a fact anyway, considering that other sources provide different information about foundation of the city. Grand  master  12:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Bournoutian has cited an older document that precedes Mirza Jamal Javanshir Qarabaghi's observation by almost a century. It overwrites Mirza Jamal Javanshir Qarabaghi's narrative, which was a politically-motivated revisionism aimed at supporting Karabakh "khan's claim to a land conquered through "deceit and treachery" as Georgian and Russian sources state (see text). Jarjaris (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Urməvi
User:Urməvi constantly removes the sourced information calling it "Cancellation of Armenian vandalism". If the mentioned use has something to say or dispute, he is more than welcome to start a discussion here and stop his clear disruptive behavior. -- Ե րևանցի talk  15:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Images
The article had a more or less balanced assortment of images of both the Azeri and Armenian monuments. I don't think it's a good idea to remove images of Azeri monuments and put more Armenian images instead, especially when no valid reason is given, which is the case. That treads on WP:NPOV. Perhaps to avoid cluttering it would be better to have one Armenian and one Azeri monument in each subsection or something like that. Brandmeistertalk  21:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Can HouseOfArtaxiad please explain why exactly the photo of Azerbaijani composer Uzeir Hajibeyov needs to be replaced with the photo of Grikor Mirzayan Suni Сhorus? If anything, Hajibeyov is much more prominent and better known around the world. And what's up with deletion of images of Azerbaijani monuments and persons in general? Are there not supposed to be any such images in this article, and all the images must be exclusively Armenian? If so, I would like to know the reason. Grand  master  18:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There is an unbalance in terms of photos, with more of them favoring Azerbaijani presence. I don't see why the article also needs an external picture that isn't even displayed on the link. I don't know why Hajibeyov should be placed here when he isn't from Shushi, or even the Karabakh region. The cultural life picture should be of someone native to the town, such as Gevork Kotiantz or Muratsan. HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hajibeyov was a native of Shusha. He grew up in this town, and was born in a village nearby. He was from Karabakh. Hajibeyov is probably the most famous person hailing from Shusha. I don't see why his picture should be removed from the article. As for the unbalance, I see that there more pictures favoring Armenian presence. The right balance needs to be maintained. Grand  master  19:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Removing of sourced information
To User:Grandmaster, why have you removed sourced information? What are you expecting to discuss here? Weather or not one can refer to an article of Italian professor or not? Хаченци (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There's a long discussion above about the reliability of this source, to which you contributed nothing. Coming out of nowhere and reverting without any consensus and discussion at talk is not acceptable, and can result in sanctions. Grand  master  22:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Population ratio
The statement that "after the massacre Shusha had a predominantly Azeri population" is misleading. In some years preceding the massacre it seems that the Armenians were a minority in the town and this is confirmed by several Armenian online sources, like Panarmenian.net: "В Шуше, считающейся центром Карабаха, в 1823 году из 1 532 семей 1 111 были мусульманскими (72,5%), 421 семья была армянской (27,5%), но уже к 1832 году за счет армянских переселенцев этот показатель достиг 44,9%"("In Shusha, considered the center of Karabakh, out of 1,532 families, 1,111 were Muslim (72,5%), 421 families were Armenian (27,5%), but due to Armenian settlers that figure reached 44,9% already in 1832"). The 1823 data is from the frequently quoted The Survey of Karabakh Province, compiled by imperial Russian officials ("Описание Карабахской провинции, составленное на 1823 г. по распоряжению главноуправляющего в Грузии Ермолова действительным статским советником Могилевским и полковником Ермоловым 2-м"). Brandmeistertalk  19:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * That's early 19th century, the massacre was in 20th century and apparently before the massacre, for a very long time the population was not predominantly Azeri. The statement doesn't seem misleading. -- va c  io  07:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources indicate it was largely non-Armenian until late 1820s: "1828 was a turning point, when in accordance with the Turkmenchay Treaty thousands of Armenian families from Persia were settled in the town and its surroundings" ("...переломным стал 1828 год, когда по итогам Туркменчайского договора в город и его окрестности были переселены тысячи армянских семей из Персии"). Since then the population becomes roughly mixed, as shown in Caucasian Calendar. Brandmeistertalk  11:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, but do you agree that it was not predominantly Azeri, in the 1900s and 1910s? -- va c  io  14:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Based on available data, yes, but it's an oversimplification to say it was the 1920 massacre (the pogrom or whatever it was) that made Azeris a majority in the town. Statistics shows that at some points before that event Shusha had a non-Armenian majority. Brandmeistertalk  21:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not an oversimplification. You also have forgotten that Armenians were the majority (and essentially only) race in the town from mostly 200 years. After that, the Persian Empire conquered the Caucasus and displaced much of the Armenian population (same thing happened in Nakhichevan) and replaced them with Muslims. After Turkmenchay they returned and the population was fairly equal. This was before Persians in the Azerbaijan Province began to consider themselves a seperate race and is also why because of the Persian Empire's short rule that they are mistaken that Nakhichevan, Karabakh and the rest of Armenia are their lands. So technically there was never an Azerbaijani majority until 1920. HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The town was founded in 1750s, and according to first Russian censuses it had a Muslim majority at the time of the Russian conquest. This is a fact, not a hearsay. Grand  master  19:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The article clearly states it was founded in the 17th century (1600) and clearly has documentations before 1750. And I said it had a mixed population after te Russian conquest and that it only had a Muslim majority prior because of intentional displacment. HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources claiming the earlier foundation of the city are the likes of Suvorov, who in fact never traveled to Shusha. We have no statistics from before the Russian conquest, so we can only refer to the Russian statistics, which show that Azerbaijani majority changed with Armenian immigration. Grand  master  20:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, Giovanni Guaita is not a reliable source. According to the Caucasus calendar of 1917 (quoted in the article), the population of Shusha in 1917 was 43.869, of which 23.396 (53 %) were Armenians, and 19.121 (44 %) Azerbaijanis (called Tatars by Russians). Thus, the figure of 30,000 of Armenian casualties is just a falsification. It is impossible to kill more people than lived there. This speaks a lot about credibility of Guaita as a historian, as he did not even care to check the statistics before making absurd claims. Grand master  19:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * He said there were 30,000 deathes in 1920, not 1917. A lot of population shifting happened in those years. Given that he couldn't literally count every single person, 30,000 is a good estimate. Unlike the proposterous claim by De Waal that only 500 Armenians died, and yet some how he is considered an elite historian on Karabakh. HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * How could the Armenian population so dramatically increase, from 23000 to 30000, in just 2 years? And after such an increase, did every single Armenian die? What is the source of this statistics, since no reliable population estimates were conducted by anyone? Clearly, Guaita simply invented this figure, as he cites no sources, as a good professional would do. We know that the Armenian population of Shusha mostly moved to Stepanakert, which was made the capital of NKAO. If all Armenians died, who settled in Stepanakert? Even Armenian propagandist sources like this one admit that 30,000 is not a realistic figure. Quote:


 * As for de Waal, he cites the same figures as Richard Hovanissian. The latter cannot be accused of anti-Armenian bias. Grand  master  20:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * you're comparing a non-Armenian historian (Guitta) to an Armenian political analyst. Guitta is a reliable source that is enough reliable to stay here. If there are other reliable historians opposing his view please add. Lkahd (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I know that he is a political analyst, and I do not propose to use him as a reference. My point here is that even the Armenian sources see the discrepancies between the available statistical info and absurd claims by some authors. Grand  master  20:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that among international scholars, Richard Hovannisian and Thomas de Waal are more renowned researchers then Guaita, their opinions have more wp:weight. 500 people killed out of 23,000 is not a small number for a massacre and likely more people were wounded. I did some research to the historical population sizes before and after WWI. There is also a significant decrease in Azerbaijanis. According to this Russian source, in 1886, the population in the area of Nagorno-Karabakh consisted of 103.055 Armenians and 17.038 Tatars (Azerbaijani). In 1926 it had changed to 111.694 Armenians and 12.592 Azerbaijani. If we assume that there was a population increase of at least 1% every year between 1886-1917, this is a increase of 31% and Armenians should be ~135,000 and Azerbaijani ~22,000 in 1917 before the outbreak of violence. This means a population loss of 23,000 for Armenians and 9,000 for Azerbaijani in the entire area. Population loss was 17% for Arm. and 41% for Az, proportionally the highest loss was for them. How much of this loss was due to deaths or migration is unknown.


 * If we just take numbers of 1886 and 1926, Ar. increase with ~9,000 and Az. decrease with ~4,500, a 9% increase for Ar. and 35% decrease for Az. If we look at the town of Shusha there was a huge decrease for both groups and it never recovered. Town population was 43,900 in 1916 but only 5,100 in 1926, there was 38,800 loss. Ar. went from ~23,400 to 100 and Az. went from 19,100 to 4,900. Ar. lost ~23,300 and Az. lost ~14,200. So it seems that both sides suffered heavily, almost all Armenians and ⅔ of the Azerbaijanis of Shusha were gone. The present article could give more info about the population losses for both groups as it is clear that not only one group was affected. Fatbob5 (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your deep and very original research. By the way, Thomas de Waal is a journalist not a historian or scholar. Lkahd (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Grandmaster, are you aware that out of the 2,100,000 Armenians in the Caucaus, only 700,000 lived in the land given to the Armenian Republic? Of course there would be massiave population shifts. Keep in mind the Karabakh was one of the lands promised the Armenia at the time and had the most highest percentage of Armenians than any other region. The number of people living in SHushi was likely much bigger than 30,000. But as far as estimates go and how limited resources were, Guitta did fine.

How is that website about the Sumgayit massacre a propaganda sight? It simply says what happened, unlike Khojaly scandel websites that forget to mention the event was carried out by Azeri opposition.

Hovannisian also claims in another book that "most of the population was killed" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shusha_massacre#cite_ref-.D0.9E.D0.B2.D0.B0.D0.BD_19-0. Obviously the number can't be 500 then. That's unacceptable. Clearly he was either mistaken or his﻿ words are being taken out of context. HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think if this 30,000 figure is to be sustained we have to find a better source than someone who is writing a general book about Armenia's churches. Hovannisian is probably the most reliable source, as he has consulted most of the literature relating to this period and done extensive archival research. And I believe his use of the word population is referring to the Armenian community, as Shushi's Azerbaijanis were not expelled from the town.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

According to Hovanissian:

So as you can see according to all sources thousands of Armenians fled from Shusha. And clearly, the figure by Guaita needs to be supported by a reliable statistical info. If the Armenian population of Shusha was 23300, and thousands fled, it is impossible that 30,000 could have died. To kill 30,000 and make thousands flee, there should have been at least 40,000 Armenian population in the city, i.e. almost twice as much as there was before the Russian revolution. The 30,000 figure is fantastic, blown out of any proportion, and cannot be substantiated by any reliable statistical source, while Guaita (also known as hieromonk Ioann: ) himself is a very obscure author. He is a researcher of eastern Christianity, taught linguistics, and is a monk now. He is not an internationally acclaimed expert on the region, unlike de Waal. The real question here is not even whether the Armenian population could theoretically have dramatically increased or not, but if the increase could be demonstrated by a reference to a statistical info. Where did Guaita get his figure from? Also, Fatbob5 makes a good sense. Indeed, not just the Armenian population, but also the Azerbaijani population sharply decreased (from 19,000 to 9,000), and obviously suffered heavy losses. So statistical part needs more work. Grand master  20:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, in De Waal's Black Garden book on page 187, an Armenian scholar made a demograpghic study on the mixed population of the region, and was denied publishing it because the USSR wanted to protray the region as homogenously Azerbaijani. So Russian estimates cannot be trusted, as they are influenced by politics. HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It was an ethnographic study, not a statistical one. De Waal does not write there anything that could suggest that the Russian and Soviet statistics might have been inaccurate. According to de Waal, that study was about "the crossbreeding of cultures in Karabakh". I do not see how you came to a conclusion that this could somehow question the accuracy of the Russian and Soviet censuses. Grand  master  20:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The talk here is absurdic. Grandmaster is trying to claim, that an author is fabricating sources based on his personal research. Unless its shown that the author is criticized by other academicians, it makes no sense to discuss weather or not he is reliable. We are just WP:Users, and cannot claim the author is a falsificator based on our own researches or opinions. Хаченци (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And second - Grandmaster, if you are claiming an Italian professor is not a reliable source, first you must proove it on talk page, and then remove the sourced information after the consensus is reached. You can't just remove any sourced text and call for such a meaningless discussion, like this one. Хаченци (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you read the discussion above, you can see that this author is not an expert on the history of South Caucasus. Guaita (also known as hieromonk Ioann in the Russian orthodox church) is a specialist on Eastern Christianity and a professor of linguistics (at the moment he is a chief of the faculty of new languages at "Sts Cyril and Methodius’ Church Post-Graduate and Doctoral School" ). Being a professor of linguistics does not make one an expert on the history of a particular region. He wrote books on linguistics and the Armenian church. He is not an acknowledged expert on the history of the South Caucasus. Plus, what he wrote defies common logic. How 30,000 Armenians could have died in a town with Armenian population of 23,000? This exaggerated figure is criticized by both Armenian and Azerbaijani authors, who rarely agree on something. As for the discussion, you can see that I'm not the only one questioning the reliability of this author here. Grand  master  19:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You may be the only one or one of the thousands of WP users, it doesn't matter, unless one of you has the same authority as Guaita. He is a historian and an expert in Eastern Christianity, which means he is an expert of Armenian studies as well (of course not all aspects of Armenian studies, but at least he has more authority than me and you). After all, in the removed text the claim of 30000 casualties is not presented as an absolute fact, but as a claim of a certain historian ("According to the historian Giovanni Guaita..."), so that any user can decide whether or not the information is reliable. Concerning the population of the city - I don't know whether that source is absolutely correct. There might be other sources concerning the population. Also, I am not sure that all killed people mentioned in the text of Guaita were inhabitants of the city, there were clashes in surrounding villages as well, so 30.000 is theoritaclly possible even if we assume that the data concerning the population of the city is absolutely reliable. But I am not going to do research here, WP is not a place for that. Хаченци (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Guaita does not have any authority as a historian. He is virtually unknown. A very obscure author. An Italian origin does not make him more or less reliable, it is the works that count. And Guaita makes no mention of the villages, he talks about the town of Shusha, which never had 30,000 Armenian population. Grand  master  22:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I try to be as critical as observer as the next person but even I am having difficulty believing the veracity of this seemingly random figure of 30,000. A historian may say many things; that he may say things that are not true can be explain away by innocent hubris or ill-intent on his part. This may not be Guaita's area of competence and it baffles one's mind to think that Azerbaijanis somehow slaughtered 30,000 people in less than a couple of days, a feat that I think the Young Turks and Nazis would be hard put to be able to match. 500, Richard Hovannisian's figure, appears to me to be far more credible and based on my understanding this is the most widely accepted number among scholars.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "and based on my understanding this is the most widely accepted number among scholars." If you have sources confirming that this is the most widely accepted number among scholars, you can simply put them in the article, and if Guaitas estimate would be so far from them, it may not be mentioned. As for now, I don't see any reason to think, that the estimate of 30.000 is not close to the real number of casualties. Хаченци (talk) 03:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * So you're convinced that 30,000 people – in a town that probably had a population of about 20,000 – were killed in a span of 3-4 days using only the crudest of instruments?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not convinced that the town had a population of about 20,000. And I am not convinced that only the crudest instrument have been used. I am also not convinced that those people have been killed only in the town, and not in numerous surrounding villages. I am however convinced that we should not select sources, just because they look more logical to us. If the estimate of Guaita is so far from reality, as you claim, there must be academical criticism of his works. So far it's only WP:Users who criticize him, based on their personal research. Хаченци (talk) 04:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * 30,000 is obviously a number too high. Before WWI, the population of the entire town was 41,000 or so, with Armenians being, as always, in slight majority. The realistic estimate is half of the number Guaita mentions. What should be mentioned is that 7,000 buildings were burned and destroyed. Hablabar (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, Shushi was bigger than both Yerevan and Baku at the time, and statistics weren't credible or easy to make at the time. It's not that hard to believe. I still don't see why we can't just quote the Italian. It's not even saying 30,000 is right, it's more for the political denial note. --HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, stand corrected, we should quote him since he wrote a major book and is a credible western author. Hablabar (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A vote should be started, though Grandmaster seems to be the only one in favor of removing the part. --HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Why exactly is Guaita a credible author? Being a linguist and writing books on Eastern Christianity does not make one an expert on South Caucasus. Clearly, this author is not an acknowledged expert in this particular field, and cannot be used as a reliable source on the events in Shusha. He might be a good expert in linguistics (which is what he does now) or Eastern Christianity, I don't know, but we should refer to specialist sources in this particular field, not to someone who makes an occasional mention of the events in question and provides no references to the sources he used. Grand  master  22:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Btw, the article about Guaita was deleted due to lack of notability:  Grand  master  22:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, why this obscure author is so important? If the figure of 30,000 is so credible, I'm sure there must be other sources, more reliable, to support this figure. Grand  master  22:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * An acknowledged expert? In which field? In the field of "history of Shusha" or int he field of "Armenian-Tatar clashes of early XX c"? Guaita is also a historian. The fact that his page was removed from wiki does not say anything, there are only few living authors, having the article in wiki. He has published number of books about Armenia, and I see no reason to consider him unreliable. Хаченци (talk) 00:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * De Waal is an acknowledged expert on the region of South Caucasus. His book is critically acclaimed. Guaita is not a known expert, and he is more of a linguist rather than a historian. His books on Armenia are more focused on the church. It is not enough just to be a historian by diploma, a historian should also have some credibility. How come that Guaita is the only one who came up with this fantastic figure? Why his death tall estimates are not shared by any other international expert? Grand  master  20:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The fact that Giovanni Guaita is a historian does make him a credible source. If a journalist like De Waal is so extensively used in wikipedia then there is no convincing argument why historian Guaita who has researched this topic should not be. The criteria for considering him a "non-reliable source" are obscure; where is the definition to which Guaita does not match?Roses&#38;guns (talk) 06:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * De Waal is a critically acclaimed expert on the region. Guaita is unknown, not an expert, and not a specialist on the region. The two cannot be compared. Grand  master  20:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Guaita has written a lot on Armenian history. He is a specialist and he is not unknown. --Хаченци (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed that Guaita doesn't say that all 30,000 Armenians are from Shushi, but rather Karabakh in general. Combined with other massacres, such as the Khaibalikend Massacre, there is no reason to suspect he is wrong. --HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, he talks only about Shusha, not Karabakh in general. Here's the quote, with no mention of Karabakh in general: :


 * The absurdity of this source and supercritical knowledge of the region's history by Guaita is once again demonstrated by the fact that he claims that Turkish troops were involved in the events of 1920, while the Turkish army was withdrawn from Azerbaijan in 1918 under the terms of the Armistice of Mudros. Grand  master  20:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Grandmaster, you have proved yourself wrong. Why would he mention the Turkish troops? Because he was discussing all the killings that took place from 1918 to 1920, including the ones committed by Turks. He mentions the Shushi massacre, than talks about mass killing, implying more than one massacre, which there were. HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That does not follow from the text. He says that local Azerbaijanis and Turkish troops perpetrated the pogrom in Shusha in March 1920, but there were no Turkish troops there in 1920. Guaita only talks about Shusha when mentioning casualties, as he says that Mandelstamm wrote a poem about this tragedy. There was no mention whatsoever of the entire Karabakh in the text, the word "Karabakh" was not used. Please read carefully. Also, if Guaita talks about the entire Karabakh and not Shusha in particular, why should we use him in this article? Grand  master  21:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * He also calls it a pogrom, which you were in favor of naming the massacre. The point is, population and title weren't the main focuses of this quote. He correctly prophesied that Azeri and Soviet troops would take no responsibility and make no attempts to bring justice to the massacre. That's why it should be kept. HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We do not include prophesies, only facts, and his claims are factually inaccurate, both with regard to the death toll and involvement of Turkish troops. Grand  master  23:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, his facts are facts. Turkish troops massacred Armenians in the city, roughly 30,000 Armenians were killed in the massacre (an exact number is impossible to get), and no reperations were ever given. If we do not put 30,000 deaths, what number do you propose we put? All the others are impossibly small. The fact is 30,000 is the most widely accepted number, similar to 9 million in the Holocaust, even though the best estimate is 8,861,800. HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * How is 30,000 the most accepted number? Who accepted it? Can you provide names, references, etc? Guaita is not sufficient to claim that something is widely accepted. Wide acceptance requires more than one person to agree with this figure. Other numbers are there, supported by sources, and 500 is the generally accepted one. Grand  master  22:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Igor Babanov confirms the number 30,000 in his novel Constantine Provincial: Karabakh crisis. Russian language only. 500 is impossible to back up, the massacre ended almost all Armenian presence in the town. HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not a historical source. And Voyevodsky is a mathematician:  Grand  master  20:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)