Talk:Shusha/Archive 9

Edit the Article
Dear ZaniGiovanni, why do you always without discussion undo? 1. It's not correct for encyclopedic article to use different names, in any case all names are noted in the article. 2. As regards to context, I keep "Shushi in Armenian", but we talked about the city "Shusha". where do you see problem in "Shusha (or Shushi, as it is known in Armenian) served... "? 3. From 3 reliable sources 1 says "Shusha" also, 2 of them say "Shushi" because of both are Armenian and say in Armenian. And it doesn't mean absolute veryfication. No independent source. --Aydin mirza (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've reworded the section to try and steer a way around the dispute by simply avoiding the contested usages. Also, please avoid re-reverting when you have already been reverted once. While I appreciate you starting this talk page section, you should wait until the discussion is finished before going back and making the change again – please remember that edit warring is disruptive in any amount. Jr8825  •  Talk  01:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

It seems like Aydin mirza is back with his WP:TENDENTIOUS style edits. Aydin, consider this a last warning, as I'm not going to tolerate your WP:OR and POV edits like last time.

First, do not re-revert, that is not how Wikipedia operates especially on contentious topics like this.

Secondly, when you get reverted, it's on you to achieve consensus for your changes since you are the one modifying the article, per WP:ONUS, WP:CONSENSUS.

You're asking me why I "undo" your edit without discussion, when you didn't even start one to begin with? You only started this discussion after reverting my revert, which isn't creating a cooperative environment for any of the editors. I'm not obliged to start a discussion, do you understand that or not? As I'm not the one changing/removing/adding anything to the article, you are. I already explained this to you multiple times in the past, but you still act the same.

Lastly, this isn't Russian or Azerbaijani Wikipedia, where you probably think your single purpose behavior and disruptive editing can pass:

Since when repeating for the bazillion time "Shusha" is an improvement to the article? The sentence literally talks about how Shushi was an ancient fortress of the Armenian Principality of Varanda, what the hell "Shusha" has to do with this sentence and in this context, when overwhelming majority if not all reliable sources clearly state that the Armenian name of the city was and is Shushi ? Do you think the Armenian Principality of Varanda called the town "Shusha"? Do you have reliable sources for that? If not, then why in the hell you're disrupting the article and adding and re-reverting your WP:OR? 

I know why you're doing this, and to any reasonable person it's very clear. Just a glance at your contributions to this project will reveal it. In any case, consider this as a last warning from me, as I will report you if you continue this POV and disruptive behavior.

In the meantime @Jr8825, I restored the stable version of the article. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 05:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Jr8825,ok,let's wait until discussion is over. But let's discuss. What's wrong with "Shusha, or Shushi as known in Armenian,..."? 1.There is sources say (majorify of relieble sources) that this city or fortress was built in 18c.by Panah khan. 2.As regards to name Shushi, the sources are Armenian and they say in their language.It's controvercial subject,and pls, give us neutral sources(WP:NPOV, WP:PSCI). Aydin Mirza Aydin mirza (talk) 21:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * is there any chance could you provide some of the sources that attest to the medieval origin? The current sources don't seem to, but I'm using machine translation for the Russian quotes. I'm also aware there are 8 pages of talk page archives and I'm sure this argument has been had many times in the past. I'm a bit busy at the moment, but it would be helpful if you looked through the archives and provided links to the previous discussions on this issue, as I expect other editors will have looked at the sources for this.  Jr8825  •  Talk  18:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There was the Emin source I added, which I see you recently moved from being a source for the medieval origin to the city being founded in 1750, when it says otherwise. The Emin source confirms it was previously an Armenian hamlet, and only refers to a fortress (not a city) being built, and says the construction was done by the Armenian melik Shahnazar, and does not use any terminology like "founded". --Steverci (talk) 23:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I moved it because the citation quote is "Shahnazar laid the foundation store, and the fortress was completed in 1752, the people of the village of Shoshi were brought to live there, and it was named Shoshi or Shushi fortress" and I conflated it with the alleged founding by Panah Ali Khan because of the same 1752 date. I've now moved it to the sentence which says sources disagree over when the city was founded – although even then, it doesn't directly support that statement. We have confusingly contradictory sources – most agree on the 1752 date, but although the majority seem to point to its founding by a Turk (Panah Ali Khan) we also have some suggesting it was an Armenian (Shahnazar). The claim whose sourcing looks weakest to me is the statement that the Armenian fortress was medieval, because the sources we have for this only describe an "ancient" fortress (i.e. undated, old). I'm not seeing where the statement it was medieval is explicitly made – this seems to be largely inference/interpretation – do you know of sources which state categorically it was medieval? Otherwise, I think we'll have to reword the lead sentence which says it was medieval, simply recounting that the sources say there was an "ancient" fortress like we do in the article body. I'm going to pick up the Bertsch, Jones and Craft book from my university library today to see what that says (it's currently being used to support the sentence "It was one of the two main Armenian settlements in the Transcaucasus, and the center of the self-governing Melikdoms of Karabakh until the 1750s"). Jr8825  •  Talk  12:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The book Shushi: The City of Tragic Fate (1999) written by Shahen Mkrtchyan, a prominent historian, states:


 * ""The medieval history of Armenia contains numerous references to the indomitable fortress of Shushi as the singular gift of nature. It has been an eagle's nest for the princes of Artsakh Sakhla Smbatian (ninth century A.D.), Hasan Jalalian (11th century A.D.), melik Shahnazarian..." (page 8)"


 * ""These foundations have lasted to our days. An inscription on page 264 of manuscript # 4375 in the Matendadaran attests to the fact that there are references to the city of Shushi dated substantially earlier than the 18th century. It reads: "In the region of Pos of the province of Varanda in a village called Shusho, under the patronage of Saint..." (page 9)"


 * There was clearly already an existing settlement with the same name at the same location before 1752. Maybe it was reinforced or expanded that year, but saying it was "founded" is patently false. --Steverci (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for digging those quotes out, they are helpful. One thing to note though is that while the fortress is described as having a "medieval history", the only dating we have for the town/village itself is once again "substantially earlier than the 18th century", which ties in with the "ancient" label above. This is compatible with the article's current wording, so I think that's fine. We do need to be mindful of making statements which aren't explicitly supported though (for example, saying "the town was founded in the Middle Ages" would be WP:SYNTH). Jr8825  •  Talk  18:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, Jr8825. I will see, as you advice, previous discussion. I approciate your attention and editions. It's not point to keep the information in the article about "Shushi" as the city or fortress refered to "Principality of Varanda (until early 17th century part of principality of Dizak, under the leadership of the Melik Shahnazarian family"), while all relieble and neutral sources (Armenians also, Raffi for example) say that this fortress and city was built by Panah khan in the middle of 18 century. As I find the links, I'll provide. --Aydin mirza (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Dear all, this is onle of the archieved discussion on Talk Page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AShusha%2FArchive_6?oldformat=true . In discussion you can find that there are a few relieble sources (encyclopedic editions, primery sources) say about city as Shusha and was built by Panah khan in the middle of 18c. and it was empty spot. As regards to name "Shushi", there is no clear proof that it was city or fortress, and not village. Even Emin Joseph (one source) says about the village. let me remind WP:ORIGINALSEARCH, we can't talk here what the author talks exactly about. --Aydin mirza (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I looked through the archives for you and the most relevant thread looks to be this massive 2013 thread (which I have not yet read in its entirety). You might want to look through and see which sources are discussed. That also reminds of your related edit request from earlier this year, which I closed on procedural grounds because consensus was needed first. Some discussion of the sources also took place there. Jr8825  •  Talk  12:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)


 * User:Jr8825, yes, I've already sent the same link above. We can fid only in 2013 similar discussion. I've read it, there are the same arguments, approximately same sources. But if you see point to put some links with sources here, I will choose the mains and paste it here. I will do it in couple of days.it was very long discussion, I'll try to collect the main and introduce it shortly. Thank you for advices. --Aydin mirza (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Country section in the template
Hello. The template should only include Azerbaijan as 3rd party international sources agree that it's an internationally recognized and integral part of Azerbaijan, now, since 8th of November controlled by Azerbaijan as well. So, there's no reason for the self-proclaimed state of Artsakh being added there. One may argue that "Artsakhi" and Armenian sources claim that it has lost its control but claim the land, then how? Artsakh has 0 control in the area. Toghrul R (talk) 11:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read any of the talk pages on any of the Azeri/ Artsakh articles for an answer to your question. A slow, tense agreement has been achieved. Please don't unravel it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * i understand there's been mb's of discussions before, but the citation was retrieved on 7 September 2021, so it's a newer one. And inside of that manipulating reference there's not even a single word related to Shusha. What can we do in this case? Toghrul R (talk) 11:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * there are many Aseri/Armenian(Artsak) articles, and no point to apply to them, because it means to loose time. there is guidelines and we should just follow. User talk:Toghrul, maybe better to apply to expirienced Users and try to open discussion here. --Aydin mirza (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note according to the OSCE Minsk co-chairs the status of Nagorno-Karbakah is still unresolved. Maidyouneed (talk) 07:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter. If even the status will be solved, nobody talks about the territory backing under the control of Azerbaijan. And Shusha nobody can back while according international law it belongs to Azerbaijan(now de-jure and de-facto). Aydin mirza (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

The article says that the Shusha is a city in Nagorno-Karabakh. But it makes no mention of Azerbaijan. Nagorno-Karabakh is not a country. The lead should mention that it is a city in Azerbaijan, since it is de-jure and de-facto under Azerbaijani jurisdiction. Grand master  19:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

A less controversial question
For consistency, should we use American or British/Commonwealth English spellings? Both are currently used in a roughly equal manner, and we should be sticking to one. Jr8825 •  Talk  20:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a tough one. But it appears that American spellings are globally more accepted these days, perhaps because of Hollywood. So I would say let's use American. Grand  master  21:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

 * Hello. There is citation in the section "Culture" - Crossroads and Conflict Security and Foreign Policy in the Caucasus and Central Asia

Edited By Gary K. Bertsch, Cassady B. Craft, Scott A. Jones, Michael D. Beck. The authors are not specialists in ancient or medieval history. --Aydin mirza (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * the cited section is the most uncontroversial and simple statement ever, do we need specialists to say that the sky is blue? - Kevo3 2 7 (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Kevo327, do you think that a.m.information is really so uncontroversial? No need to reply:)) 1. It's article about the city Shusha, not Shusha destrict. We find enough information confirming that the city was always important for both communities (Armenian and Azerbaijani). 2. if someone wants to insert the information like "..while the surrounding territories also include many ancient Armenian villages", pls, provide with the relieble sources, even if you thisnk that it's uncontroversial and simple statement. Sorry, but the sky we can see, while the ancient armenian villages surround Shusha - can't. --Aydin mirza (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello @Jr8825. Sorry for desturb, but I need your advice again. I put template "not revieble source" and of cause another Users undo. Why can't I ask relieble source? I'd like to pay attention that the same Users don't let me to insert the information with relieble sources in the article Kapan. Here is WP:JDLI, but in the article Kapan not. Why? Honestly, I think that I can revert last undo. Is it against the guidelines?--Aydin mirza (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Aydin mirza you got a warning for your comments in Talk:Kapan, after you essentially withdrew from the discussion. All of this was explained to you by El C in your talk page. Yet you're here, in a completely different article's talk page, asking another editor:
 * "Users don't let me to insert the information with relieble sources in the article Kapan"
 * What are you exactly trying to do by this? Why didn't you continue the discussion in Kapan? I'm starting to think this is going to WP:NOTTHERE territory. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Dear ‎ZaniGiovanni, 1. if this information is so uncontroversial, it's very easy to provide with the really relieble sources. Nobody can says that "we don't need specialists to say that the sky is blue" concerning any historian infornmation 2. As regards to WP:JDLI, let me remind you the article Kapan, where you don't let me insert the info with the releible source. 70 years the city had another name, but you don't let to note it. Why? Maybe because of WP:JDLI.   So, don't make troubles, we are here to make this Project better. --Aydin mirza (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Same thing, yet again. First you withdrew from the discussion in Kapan, now you're bringing it up in another article's talk page and judging by your comments, it seems like you didn't even read my answer to you previously, maybe have a look (and please don't misrepresent my position ever again) Talk:Kapan. Indeed, this seems like a one big WP:JDLI.
 * When it comes to this article (which you should probably be focused on, just maybe), I removed your tag as your only reason for it was:
 * "the authors are not reliable in the field of medieval or ancient history."
 * Why aren't they reliable? What made you arrive to this conclusion? Nothing, no explanation given. Maybe you could enlighten us finally?
 * Lastly, it wouldn't be entirely unreasonable judging by your comments, continual mention of another article (in a different article's talk page) even after you withdrew from the discussion, and your contributions' history, that you are not actually here to make the project better. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * User talk:ZaniGiovanni, I explained, but you don't read my explainations(or don't accept). Repeat for you once more. Gary K. Bertsch, can you say us who is he? is he historian? is he specialist in ancient history of Caucasian region? And lastly once more concerning "why aren't they relieble?",it's especially for you from Wikipedia WP:SOURCEDEF - Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people. According to you, any western-speaking author can be relieble. All these authors are not in relation to the subject(history of the city Shusha). Honestly, this sentence is not so huge problem. And I don't say that the villages weren't Armenian, but it's article about the city, not destrict, no point to insert it here. But in case you think, it should be kept, provide with the relieble source. I think, discussion with you is over. --Aydin mirza (talk) 23:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * all the indications are that Bertsch et al. is a very good source. It's published by Routledge, an academic publisher with a strong reputation. I see no reason to question its reliability. Jr8825  •  Talk  00:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * User Talk:Jr8825, no doubt in good reputation of the publisher or author, but he is not regarded to the subject. If you think so, I don't wanna to spend more time for this, considering your neutral position in this discussion. As I understand, any source with good reputation is acceptable (without any regarding to the subject), isn't it? If you let me, I will apply to you reg another articles, when it's needed. --Aydin mirza (talk) 23:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * An academic publisher such as Routledge will editorially review the content it publishes, which suggests the authors have relevant expertise. Jr8825  •  Talk  18:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, User:Jr8825. ok, I see, no question more reg this subject. Sorry, it took time, but there is difference comparing Russian and German Projects(they are more carefull with the sources). I'll consider it. Thank you for your attention and support. Aydin mirza (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, reg "attributing this to an alliance between Shahnazar, the local Armenian prince (melik) of Varanda, and Panah Ali Khan, founder of the Karabakh Khanate", it looks like Original Search of AntonSamuel, it drives the readers to the wrong direction. Melikdoms were subordinated establishment. There is no source (inkluded citiations in the article) said in this way. Panah-Ali Khan Javanshir of Karabakh established and subordinating the Five Melikdoms, with support of the Armenian prince Melik Shahnazar II Shahnazarian of Varanda, who first accepted Panah-Ali Khan's suzerainty. An alliance is union or any relationship between equal partner. --Aydin mirza (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Great Soviet Encyclopedia
How can the Great Soviet Encyclopedia possibly be considered a WP:RS source? Per the eponymous article on Wikipedia and the listed source, it claimed to be "the first Marxist–Leninist general-purpose encyclopedia". See also; Human rights in the Soviet Union, Historiography in the Soviet Union. I fail to see how a "Marxist-Lenininst" encyclopedia, created in a polity without freedom of press, is somehow a reliable source on such a contentious topic area. Even moreso considering that the modern-day root of the region's problem lays in Soviet policies and Soviet decision making. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * It is just one of the many sources that confirm Shusha being founded in 1752. What it wrote is no different from what Encyclopedia of Islam or Iranica wrote. I don't see how an article on the history of a town could be affected by Soviet ideology, especially when what it writes is identical to what the Western scholarship says. But I'm ok with it being replaced by something else, there are many to chose from. Grand  master  09:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Done. Feel free to add better sources that support the same claim. - LouisAragon (talk) 11:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Collage
The collage in the infobox should not be changed unilaterally, without consultation with other involved editors. Edit warring instead of discussion is not in line with WP:BOLD and WP:BRD. The collage should represent popular landmarks of the city. What is the point in inserting a photo of the monument to Vazgen Sargsyan (who is considered a war criminal in Azerbaijan), which was installed during Armenian control of the city, and is now demolished? If the quality of images in the previous collage is an issue, then let's discuss which images to include, and achieve a consensus. But changing the collage without discussion, despite objections of other editors, and edit warring to keep it is unacceptable. Grand master  20:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * How about you review what edit warring constitutes again before making bold claims, a simple revert of an edit based solely on your personal opinion as opposed to Wikimedia Standards is not “edit warring.” Multiple editors, here and on the commons have expressed concern about the collage being outdated, so I went out of my way to use better images of the exact same locations. I also did talk to other users such as Curiousgolden who seems to be in favor of my collage. Again collages are not a matter of personal opinion but image quality, I didn’t even change any of the structures, if you are so concerned about a tiny statue that I didn’t even notice, I will change it to an image of the city center suggested by Curiousgolden, but accusing other editors of “edit warring” for undoing an edit based on your own personal opinion with no valid rationale is not constructive, this collage has nothing to do with the debates going on in this page which I am not involved in.TagaworShah (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Once your edit is reverted, it means that there are objections to it. Instead of reverting back, it is recommended to discuss the issue, as per WP:BRD. Grand  master  20:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The statue has been replaced with a quality image of the city center.TagaworShah (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That is better, thank you. Grand  master  20:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Good, glad we could work that out. Just a tip about Wikipedia policy however, WP:BRD is an optional dispute resolution strategy. Per WP:RMV, good faith additions, such as a simple collage, are to remain in the article pending consensus, so it would’ve been better if you just started a talk page discussion rather than reverting, as you can see I would’ve been more than happy to change an image. Me boldy changing the collage also isn’t a problem, per WP:STABLE “ boldly making changes to articles is encouraged as a matter of policy, and obstructing good faith edits for the sake of preserving "stable" content is disruptive.” Just for future reference.TagaworShah (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * According to WP:BOLD: After the reversion of your bold edit, you might want to be bold in an edit on the talk pages so as to not start an edit war; see BOLD, revert, discuss cycle for more. In any case, it was me who started this discussion, and I'm also glad that the problem is solved. Grand  master  21:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)