Misplaced Pages

Talk:Shusha: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:45, 6 December 2006 editROOB323 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,063 edits →Dispute← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:24, 5 April 2024 edit undoGrandmaster (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers25,547 edits →Importance of Maintaing Armenian Perspective in this Article 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk header}}
To the author of this edit:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|
Does anybody know how to revert edits to en earlier date's version. We have to stop this Grandmaster otherwise he is going to use everything about Shushi as a propaganda. On sept 25 he made changes that remained unnoticed. It was a real vandalism but he did not get blocked. When we armenians try to change something here we get blocked. Who is finally responsible for all this idiotism???? user armenian-nj
{{WikiProject Azerbaijan|importance=high}}
''
{{WikiProject Armenia|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Artsakh|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Cities}}
}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|a-a}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 14
|minthreadsleft = 2
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:Shusha/Archive %(counter)d
}}
__TOC__
{{Clear}}


== Stop blindly reverts ==


Both {{ping|AntonSamuel}} and {{ping|TagaworShah}} are ignoring ]. What's the point?
According to Azeri sources, the reason for this rapid population growth was not only economic development, but also Russian-sponsored massive Armenian settlement in Karabakh and other parts of Azerbaijan that took place throughout the 19th century. However, this is unlikely because all Armenians in Shusha and all of Karabakh speak an Eastern Armenian dialect whereas Armenians under Ottoman occupation spoke Western Armenian.''


Mistakes listed:
According not only to Azeri sources, but also Russian envoy , who described the immigration of Armenians from Persia. ] 16:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
* Azerbaijani and Armenian names are in bold (wrong)
: That I accept. They were resettled from Persia. The passage implied they were resettled from Turkish held territories. These are the Armenians who were taken by force from their lands (including Nakhichevan and Karabakh) to Persia by the order of Shah Abbas.
* Azerbaijani is not even italic (wrong)
*http://www.iles.umn.edu/faculty/bashiri/Esfahan/Julfa.html
* Shushi being named equal to main name despite being not the article name (wrong) it should be other_name
*http://www.littlearmenia.com/html/history/detail.asp?id=129
* Mention of non-English demonyms (very wrong), what's the point? Conme on
*http://www.iranchamber.com/people/armenians_in_iran1.php
* Inclusion map of the dissolving Republic of Artsakh, that's not even controlling this place since 2020
--] 17:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


The 2021 "consensus" simply ignores these things. ] (]) 17:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
:: After Turkmanchay treaty Armenians in great numbers were resettled from Persia to Caucasus, there are many evidences of that. For the most part they had nothing to do with those Armenians, who along with Muslims were deported from Caucasus by Shah Abbas 200 years before Karabakh became a part of Russian empire. Resettlement was part of the tsarist Russia’s policy of changing the demographics of the region and increasing the proportion of Christian population. Russia also encouraged migration of Armenians from Turkey for the same reasons, Tabib provided references about that. ] 19:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
:No blind revert. 1. a good and balanced stance - in the territory of the former Nagorno-Karabakh autonomous oblast. 2. no opinion. 3. the disputed history of the town and the tragic consequences of the confilct are very clear. 4. ridiculous - filler 5. the map is relevant - intention to remove it comes from a political stance/desire. ] (]) 17:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
:::That is the keyword here, they were resettled from Persia. They had nothing to do with Shah Abbas' deportation? How do you think they ended up in Persia in the first place? It was not a Russian policy in regards to Turkey, Armenians of Russia were saving those in Turkey from absolute annihilation. It's as simple as that. It's not like Armenians would leave their territories within Turkey if they had a choice. Not to mention that no Armenian refugee from Ottoman/Western Armenia ever set foot in Artsakh. All Armenians within Artsakh speak and have always spoken Eastern Armenian. The refugees from Turkey settled only in the territory of modern Armenia and Georgia. I will address Tabib's references in due time.--] 19:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
::First we're talking about the infobox. I don't care what you do in the body of the article unless it's wrong. Misplaced Pages isn't based on outdated information and emotions. And your answer "ridiculous" for me following the rules based on template is ridiculous. Is that your answer? Map is not any slighest relevant anymore. Republic of Artsakh is dissolving itself, and it's not even controlling the area. {{tq|intention to remove it comes from a political stance/desire}} what do you mean lol? I don't gain anything by removing some bytes on internet. I told my reasonings based on wikipedia template, and you're not even respecting it. What kind of comment is that of accusing my edits based on {{tq|political stance/desire}}. This goes into personal attacks. ] (]) 18:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
:@] Please stop insulting your fellow Misplaced Pages editors, these are not blind reverts, your edits go against an established consensus among users, it is on you to seek a new consensus. The MOS varies among articles due to differing consensus on how certain articles should be formatted, if you read the guidelines this is to be expected and does not give you the right to change a consensus without discussion especially with AA3 sanctions active. Accusing your fellow editors of acting on emotions is also a personal attack btw and not civil, please remember ] in your talk page discussions because this is not the first time i’ve seen you been uncivil to people of differing beliefs to your own. ] ] 18:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
::{{tq| Accusing your fellow editors of acting on emotions}} this was put here to everyone, not to a certain user. He's talking about tragic stuff, that's what I said. Also do I accuse him of outdated information? Read my whole sentence. {{tq|your talk page discussions because this is not the first time i’ve seen you been uncivil to people of differing beliefs to your own}} show me some examples, I never point to users based on their ideas. It's also the first time I'm interacting with you.
::Maybe comment on the infobox that's been wrongly used here. Don't turn the topic into personal beef. ] (]) 19:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
:::I patrol a lot of the pages regarding Armenia and Azerbaijan so i’ve seen a few comments, it’s nothing personal, I just ask for you to not accuse editors of bad faith for simple things like maintaining a consensus. The infobox can be formatted a variety of ways based on the consensus among users, there is a MOS but when there is consensus for a different style, especially in a contentious and controversial area that supersedes it, so I would recommend starting a new conversation about the infobox and seeking consensus per ]. ] ] 20:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
:It is interesting that the edits @] made here were instantly reverted, but the they made to the ] remains untouched. Does the issue emerge only when it doesn't favor a particular POV? ] (]) 08:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
::No, please revert those too, I don’t have rollback abilities so it’s hard to manually revert these cases every single time. ] ] 08:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)


== Importance of Maintaing Armenian Perspective in this Article ==
from 64.208.49.60
In accordance with WP:5P, I claim that this article currently only represents an Azeri POV (previous edits which introduced Armenian POV have been constantly reverted (which goes against WP:BRD-NOT), therefore no one can claim that this article currently represents a neutral point of view per WP:5P2). I have made BOLD edits that attempt to reconcile points of view into a more neutral article:
Sorry I don't read russian. Did they come from Persia or Ottoman empire because of turkish-russian wars? This argumentation is not clear!
Introduced neutral POV on the establishment of the city. Considering undisputable evidence of Armenians inhabiting the region for millennia, and the fact that the location of Shushi is such that it is an ideal location to establish a city in the bronze age or even the middle ages, it's impossible that the city was only founded in 1715. It's also highly improbable that the city was founded by Azeris or the Shah, since Armenian presence in the region predates any Azeri or Arabic presence. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Why did you erase the fact that Armenians outnumbered Tatars in 1916 according to russian statistics?
How could you say that "The Christian Armeno-Albanian population of Karabakh (which hitorically formed as a result of ethnic mixture of local Caucasus Albanians and Armenians)" and on an other hand "but also Russian-sponsored massive Armenian settlement in Karabakh and other parts of Azerbaijan that took place throughout the 19th century"? The armenian proportion in Shushi population didn't increased from 1885 to 1916 in Shushi.
Do you contest that pogroms and massacres was made by turks and azeris soldiers in 1920 against the armenian civilians? Could you demonstrate that "mutual pogroms occured"?
Bournoutian has demonstrated the pro-azeri manipulation of russian statistics and manipulation of its own articles by mix-up between Karabagh and Nagorno-Karabagh in order to prove armenian immigration :
http://www.umd.umich.edu/dept/armenian/sas/bour2.html


:There was a very long discussion and RFC about that. The present version is based on consensus. Please discuss and reach consensus at talk before making any changes. ]] 14:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
There's not a single albanian inscription in all Artsakh. Even a pro-Azeri author as Thomas De Waal "Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War" - 2004, who doesn't accept the fact of the armenian genocide in Turkey, recognizes that armenized albanians in Nagorny-Karabagh theory is a complete fabrication by azeri extremists. There's only armenian engravures on old churches and tombstones.

There is an history before 1756 in both Artsakh and Shushi. This page needs an update. See you soon.

: There’s no need to repeat the same information many times, it should be included in the article only once. You provide the numbers of Azeri and Armenian population in the section “Shusha within the Russian Empire”, then repeat it again in the beginning of the article. As for ethnic clashes of 1920, they started after the attack of Armenian forces on Azeri garrisons. It is also described separately in the relevant section.

: Bournoutian accuses his opponents of manipulating the numbers, but does exactly the same himself. I don’t think we should base this entry on the opinions of modern Armenian and Azeri researchers, they are engaged in a propaganda war, so it is better to use original sources.

: As for de Waal being pro-Azeri, if he had been, he wouldn’t have said such things in his book, he would have supported only Azeri point of view, don’t you think so? His book is interesting, but there are some original sources, which show the things in a different perspective. ] 19:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

== Dubious references and text added by Tabib ==

*1. There was no Russian held census in 1823. There is no record of even some local survey.
*2. There was no such term as “Azeri” in those years, Muslims were called Tatars by themselves and foreigners
*3. Allegedly Shavrov wrote in 1911: "''Of 1 million 300 thousand Armenians living nowadays in South Caucasus, more than 1 million don't belong to the indigenous population of the region and were settled by us' – something is wrong with this quote: the term “South Caucasus” was not in use in '''1911''', it’s a very recent invention. How is this possible then? The whole thing sounds phony. Besides, Nikolay Shavrov (Russian journalist and publicist, was very much involved in Caucasus region) died in 1899 ! More soon :) --] 23:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

:: It’s all just a matter of translation. The original source is in Russian. Of course there was no such term as South Caucasus, the original document uses the term Transcaucasia. Azeris were called Muslims or Tatars by Russians. Tabib used the modern name for this region, but that doesn’t really change anything. I’ll give you the original quote, and you do the translation. The book is called "Новая угроза русскому делу в Закавказье: предстоящая распродажа Мугани инородцам". Санкт-Петербург, 1911 г. It is written by Russian ethnographer Shavrov.

:: ''Наибольшее количество переселенцев выпадает на долю армян: так, из 1.300 тысяч, проживающих в Закавказье армян, более 1.000.000 душ не принадлежит к числу коренных жителей края и поселены нами.''

:: As regards migrants from Turkey, he wrote the following:

:: ''"Конечно, колонистам были отведены лучшие земли казны и даны различные льготы. Затем с 1828 по 1830 год мы переселили в Закавказье свыше 40.000 персидских и 84.600 турецких армян и водворили их на лучшие казенные земли Елизаветпольской и Эриванской губерний, где армянское население было ничтожно, и в Тифлисском, Борчалинском, Ахалцихском и Ахалкалакском уездах. Для поселения им было отведено более 200.000 десятин казенных земель и куплено более чем на 2 млн. рублей частновладельческих земель у мусульман: Нагорная часть Елизаветпольской губернии и берега озера Гокчи заселены этими армянами. Необходимо иметь в виду, что из 124.000 армян, официально переселенных, переселились сюда и множество неофициальных, так что общее число переселившихся армян значительно превышает 200.000 человек. После Крымской кампании опять вселяется некоторое число армян, в точности не зарегистрированное. Период с 1864 по 1876 г. ознаменовывается нашей усиленной деятельностью по заселению Черноморского побережья армянами и греками, привозившимися на казенный счет из Малой Азии, а затем эстами, латышами, чехами. Новоселам отводились лучшие казенные земли. Счастливо окончившаяся турецкая война 1877-1879 гг. одарила нас целым потоком малоазиатских новоселов: в Карсскую область вселено около 50 тыс. армян и около 40 тыс. греков, и сразу пустовавшая область получает довольно многочисленное инородческое население. Кроме того, генерал Тер-Гукасов выводит в Сурмалинский уезд 35 тыс. кибиток турецких армян, которые остаются у нас. После этого начинается непрерывный поток армян из Малой Азии, переселяющихся сюда семьями и отдельными лицами".''

:: I leave the translation up to you to avoid accusations of using the terms that did not exist at that time. ] 15:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
:::It is hard to comment the quote, since none of us, I assume, have the actual book in front of us. It is true, that there was a large scale relocation of Armenians from Western Armenia to Russian-held territories of Armenia, in 1820-1830-ies. The question is: how accurately is it reflected in the “quote”? And is the quote genuine, to begin with? For example, this: Наибольшее количество переселенцев выпадает на долю армян: так, из 1.300 тысяч, проживающих в Закавказье армян, более 1.000.000 душ не принадлежит к числу коренных жителей края и поселены нами. is definitely a gross exaggeration, hence – a good reason to suspect the veracity of the entire quotation. No one can seriously suggest that more than a million people were relocated! There is a good chance that the whole quote is fabricated. Some wording raises my suspicions: инородческое население. It doesn’t sound quite right – I don’t think a Russian author would refer to Armenians in such form. One more: После этого начинается непрерывный поток армян из Малой Азии, переселяющихся сюда семьями и отдельными лицами". “Малая Азия” is a relatively new term, and was not in common use in XIX century Russian language. I’ve got a very interesting book: «Присоединение Восточной Армении к Росии» - a vast collection of Russian archival documents, published by the Academy of Sciences in 1972. Just checked the index, to make sure I was right: the term “Малая Азия” is not mentioned even once!
I have encountered this “quote” many times, it always comes up from Azeris, in their arguments. I personally think this is just a fraud – there is no such quote. But to be 100 percent sure, one must see the hard copy of the book, of course (if such book exists at all). Can someone, at least, name the title of this book, which evidently is so popular among Azeris? I did some more research – “Malaya Aziya” is nowhere to be found in Russian documents (and I am talking about 3 thousand archival documents related to Russian-Turkish relations, in 4 volumes). I am very much convinced now that the whole “quote” is simply a poorly composed forgery, unless I see a reliable source with my own eyes. Too many mistakes (in language, terms, etc.) - and not a single serious reference.
You may want to see these statistics (from Brokguaz & Yefron “Энциклопедический словарь”, 1911 – a prestigious encyclopedia at the time). Жит. 25656 (13282 муж. и 12374 жен.), в том числе 56,5 % армян и 43,2 % азербайджанских татар; остальные — русские и евреи. http://www.cultinfo.ru/fulltext/1/001/007/117/117444.htm--] 23:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
::: I just ran words Шавров Новая угроза through Google. Of course! Absolutely ALL hits (with that quote) referred to Azeri sites. Not a single non-Azeri reference! If the site, found by Google, is not Azerbaijani, the “quote” is brought up by an Azeri anyway. One was within an Armenian discussion forum. Try it yourself. --] 23:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
::::Well, I trust Grandmaster, his translations have been accurate. What I want to ask you, Grandmaster, is this. Where did you read that quote. We will need to add the "reporting" site in addition to the "ultimate" citation. Of course if the book can be found, we don't need to do that. Now, as me and Grandmaster were discussing on the NK board, once the the source is verified to exist, rules of original research prohibit us to investigate whether Sahalov lied or didn't lie. Still, the publication/author need to be reputable, and this is where Eupator's research is relevant (as to whether we should present it as a mainstream view or something that was just stated by Sahalov). On the other hand if we can find reputable books that state the opposite, they will need to be included too. --] 01:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

::::By the way, the quote still doesn't say that any of those Armenians were settled in Shushi. We cannot make that inference on our own, if the inference is even to be included in the article, then it must have been published in a reputable source. He does mention "mountainous areas of Eliz. province" among the places where the Armenians were settled, but this could include Zangezur, or the areas north of Karabakh. By the way, Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia, v. 13 has a map of Armenians' migrations to the area (the volume was published in 1987, the map was made in 1985). It shows large arrows to Georgia and modern Armenia's territory, a small arrow to Gyulistan (north of Karabakh), no arrow pointing to Karabakh itself. The article on Shushi itself mentions nothing about settlement. The local area's dialect is absolutely different from Iranian Armenian, which by the way is very similar to modern Armenia's dialect. Unless we find a reputable source making the connection, the article at best should say "Azeri side points to quote by ..... to claim .....".--] 01:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

::::: Hi Tigran and other guys. Please stop talking about the things you have no idea about. The term ''Малая Азия'' was in use for ages, see article from , it is written before the Russian revolution. According to them, ''Название М. Азии существует лишь с начала V в. по Р. Х., со времени Орозия Испанского, который написал очерк христианской истории до 4 1 0 года''. I know you are trying very hard to find faults with the references, but if you really want to prove something, you need to check the original source. But trying to find faults with words and phrases is not gonna work. Unfortunately, this book is not available online, but it was re-released in Baku in the early 90s. You have to look for the original publication in Russian libraries. By the way, this book is also quoted by pro-Armenian researcher Svetlana Lurie about Russian colonization of Caucasus, so it’s not our invention. ] 07:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::Grandmaster, where did you copy Mr. S's quote from? By the way, there was no quote about Armenians in Svetlana's article. Sorry, I like to talk about things I don't know. That's what Talk pages are for, I am sure you will correct if there is a mistake.--] 09:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

::::::: My quote is taken from the article by , he’s “старший научный сотрудник Института проблем управления РАН РФ”, and is very accurate with quoting sources, you can check his quote of , for example. And I did not say that Lurie quotes passages about Armenians, she just refers to the same book. Some of you say that this book is quoted only by Azeris, which is not true. ] 14:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::::
МАМЕДЛИ is hardly someone neutral obviously, quote him all you want as an Azeri source. It's not the same book. Your propapaganda sites (where tabib got his refs and text from) refer too "Новая угроза русскому делу" not "Русская колонизация на Кавказе" the existance of which can be verified with ease. Are you saying it's the same book?--] 14:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

: No, these are two different books by the same author. Lurie refers to both of these books. I don’t refer to Mamedli's conclusions, as he represents one of the sides in the conflict, but I think he can be trusted as a source for the quote. If you can prove that the quote is false, you win the case. ] 16:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

::It doesn't matter whether Mamedli is right or wrong--we didn't get the quote from Mr. S, we got it from an azer site (http://karabakh-doc.azerall.info/ru/azerpeople/ap020.htm) that quotes Mamedli that quotes Mr. S. The rules of citation require that this be mentioned.
::We are not saying Mr. S's book doesn't exist, we are saying the quote could have been distorted by the Azeri cite (there are famous examples, including the notorius "wholly opportunistic" clause about Armenians, or the "Yafet-Aran" "mistake"). Until someone reads the book itself, our source is not the book, our source is the azeri site quoting the book.--] 21:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

::: Well, I’m speaking for myself only, I took my quote from Mamedli, who’s not known for distorting quotes, and as the law has it he is not guilty until proven otherwise. If you can prove that this guy misquotes the source, then you are right, otherwise your accusations are baseless. And mind you, I didn’t write this entry about Shusha anyway. ] 05:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

:::: This is not about holding Mamedli criminally responsible, it's about what source did you use. When we include a fact in the article, we cite the source that we used. We used as our source the Azeri cite that quotes Mamedli who quotes Mr. S. That's the source that we need to mention in citing the quote (all 3 levels). (And besides, this is the citation rule used both in APA and MLA styles, both discussed in and both being the predominant styles used in academics. The article contains links to detailed handbooks discussing both styles).

:::: The reason we are treating you as the provider of the source is that you are the only one who has verified where the quote was obtained. Tabib hasn't verified, so without you, the quote would remain unverified and subject to deletion. Now at least we know it's taken from somewhere verifiable, which needs to be mentioned as the source.--] 09:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

::::: Well, Tabib cited his sources, all you need to do is to look for them and check them. As far as I know, Misplaced Pages rules don’t require providing scanned images every time you cite a source. As for my sources, they have nothing to do with the article and were used only in this discussion, as you had doubts about some terms and it helped to clear the matters. So your attempt to link my source with the article is quite absurd, to say the least. Regards, ] 20:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

:A few more points:
:First, Tabib is known for copying quotes from azeri sites, writing only the "original" citation, and omitting the azeri website in the citation. Right now I dont' have time to copy paste and search, but go to the Nagorno K talk archives, search for quotes attributed to, say, Ishkhanian. Then do a text search on google. The introductory sentence written by Tabib is taken verbatim from azeri sites. Also check out in the same archives quotes attributed to Moses Kalankaytuk. The errors (e.g. "Yafet-Aran," the quote makes it sound this was a name of a person, which is distortion of the source text--it's "so and so guy, who was descendant of Yafet--named Aran....") are repeated verbatim on the azeri sites. Tabib didn't read those quotes in their sources, he read them on Azeri sites. The latest quote by the russian appears on many azeri sites. When we quote on Wiki, we include the source where we got the quote. If the quote should remain, it should state that "according to azeri site etc., Salahov said etc.."
:Ask Tabib to post a scanned shot of the page of the quote and the opening page of the book. He has scanned stuff before, so he has the capability.
:Second, the quote is irrelevant to the issue it is "supposed" to prove. It's talking about all Southern caucasia. Even if 1 million Armenians were settled, 300,000 were native, and they could very well include (and all evidence suggests, they did) 60,000-90,000 Armenians living in Karabakh. Most settlers were settled in Georgia and around Yerevan. Karabakh Armenians have been living there since whenever. At best, the article should say "the Azeri sides points to this quote to claim that ....."
:Until a quote is verified, any editor has the right to take it out based on Misplaced Pages rules. I am too busy right now, and not active on this page, but feel free to take the quote out until Tabib verifies it or admits it's from an Azeri site. Then add back what you said about "Armenians in Karabakh don't speak the same dialect as those in Western Armenia" (you can phrase it in more NPOV way). It's valuable information, shouldn't be excluded. in editting the page based on Wiki rules, it's strongly encouraged by Wiki policies.
:Finally, check your talk page, in case you have missed, I answered your question, albeit abit late:)--] 03:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Grandmaster, please read and check them out before any judgements


The variant was till now - impudent propaganda lie. Shusha it has been constructed in the center of ethnically Armenian region Varanda, under the arrangement with the Armenian prince of this region Melik-Shakhnazar. The cultural shape of city till 1920 was defined by Armenians, and Azerbaijanians named it " Ermeni Shusha " - " Armenian Shusha ". In 1918-1919 Susha was capital of " Armenian Karabakh ". In 1920 Azerbaijanians have burnt city and have massacred and have expelled the basic part of its population. These are historic facts, and the facts conclusive, it is pleasant to someone or not pleasant. If someone considers, that the facts which contradict its nationalist feelings, it is not necessary to place - this person let writes for own Vikipedia.

: Cite your reliable authoritative sources, please. References to the websites like nkr.am are not accepted. The role of melik of Varanda is fairly reflected. ] 10:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:I refer to primary sources and primary sources not only Armenian (Mandelstam, Ordjonikidze). And you in general on any sources do not refer, except for Adegizel-bek which precisely writes, that the city has been based according to and on the ground of the Armenian prince.

:: Which primary sources do you refer to? They are all taken from Armenian websites and are not reliable. Adigezal-bey is a primary source, I quote him from the Russian website, and he does not say anything about the land being owned by anyone. Check it again. ] 11:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Primary sources are taken not from the Armenian sites, and from the Armenian academic publication. These are archival documents. ] 15:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

: Please check ]. ] 11:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

: Primary sources do not cease to be primary sources of that they are published in Yerevan or Baku. As you on this theme do not have either primary, or secondary sources - in general any, and there are only your own imaginations, for example that as if Armenians have attacked in 1920 in Shusha on azeri and began to set fire to their houses whereas not only the Armenian sources, but also Russian speak about massacre of Armenians by Azerbaijanians] 15:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

==Trimming==
Is this about Shusha or the khanate? The history section is way too long, needs retyping. Anyone willing to trim it a bit?] 05:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

:I think we should actually move a large part of it to ]. What do you think? <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 05:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

::Well, I dont think thats necessary, we should just stick to the history of the city, it should be easy to trim. Lots of it talks about the background events which is really unnecessary. I dont know, we should wait for more input. Also, the sentence about the city's population decrease seems like a math example and not actual information. I have currently put that that the population was halved until someone can re word the origional sentence better. There also seems to be some edit warring going on, maybe Khoikhoi can help defuse the situation? If not, I guess I could do it, I dont have leaning between either the Armenian or Azeri view, so I think I could be neutral enough.] 05:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

:::If sources can be provided for the disputed claims, that would be good. As for the edit warring, the anon is currently blocked for 48 hours, but if they return, we could definately discuss things. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 06:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

:::BTW, I think it's more convenient for readers to mention briefly that the Qajars were of Turkic origin. This will help ignorant readers to know what groups were in the region back then. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 06:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

:::One last thing: I think that saying "present-day Azerbaijan" is a fair compromise, rather than saying "Azerbaijan" or not having it at all. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 06:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

:::: Fair enough. ] 06:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::Khoikhoi, that makes no sense. Regarding the Qajar issue, people can click on the link. I have never read anywhere English speaking Americans, or French Persian speaking Achaemenids, etc... that makes no sense. Also, regarding the other edit, that makes no sense either. How can Shusha have been the largest city in present day Azerbaijan? Thats like saying that Tenochitclan (I know I spelled it wrong, but the Aztec capital) was the largest city in present day Mexico... makes no sense grammatically or historical. It just doesnt make any sense to say that...] 15:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::I never said they were Turkic-speaking, I said they were of Turkic ''origin'', which is important info for the reasons I already stated. Why are you trying to hide this fact? <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 16:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::::I know, I just meant in general, it doesnt make any sense. That is what Wikilinking is for. I'm not hiding any fact, however, saying that the Qajar's were Turkic (which they were) and that their families came from Shusha doesnt really say anything about the region...As Brittanica puts it, these khanates were Persian ruled anyway... should we put that in two? This is about the city.] 16:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::::: Karabakh khanate was nominally Persian ruled only during the reign of the founder of khanate Panakh-Ali khan, and completely independent during the reign of his son Ibrahim Khalil. Qajars were Turkic and they ruled not only Persia, but also Ganja and Karabakh. When they refused to support Nadir shah and remained loyal to Safavids, Nadir shah took Karabakh out of their control and subordinated it to the ruler of Iranian Azerbaijan. After this Panakh-Ali declared himself a khan of Karabakh, and was affirmed as such by the decree of Adil shah. But when Qajars came to power in Persia, they refused to recognize Ibrahim-Khalil as a ruler of Karabakh, as they supported their relatives in Ganja and insisted that Karabakh belonged to Ziyad-oglu clan of Qajars, who ruled Ganja. Since that time Karabakh khanate was independent from Persia and Qajar rulers several times invaded the region to subordinate the region to Iran, but failed each time. Eventually imperial Russia took the region over and eliminated the khanate. This story in much detail can be found in a number of sources, including Abbas-Kuli aga Bakikhanov, Mirza Jamal Javanshir, Mirza Adigezal bey and others. I can provide online links to Russian texts of those chronicles. ] 06:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

== Qajars ==

The information deleted by Tigran is not false. Karabakh was ruled by Qajars of Ganja before Karabakh khanate was established. See Abbas-Kuli Bakikhanov:

''Каджары — это племя Джалаирских тюрок из числа тех 200 тысяч семейств, которые были переселены Хулагу-ханом (внуком Чингиз-хана) в Персию. В Ma'acup-u султанийе (истории Каджаров) сказано: Сартак — один из влиятельных людей этого племени, был наставником Аргун-хана и правителем Хорасана и Табаристана. Он имел сына по имени Каджар, от которого и пошло это племя. Часть каджаров некогда переселилась в Анатолию и Сирию. Эмир Теймур (Тамерлан) переселил 50 тысяч семейств каджаров в Кавказский край и поселил их в Эриване, Гандже и Карабаге, где они в течение времени еще более умножились. Многие из этих каджаров при сефевидских шахах были государственными деятелями и управляли Армениею и Ширваном. Это от них произошли эриванские и <u>ганджинские ханы, из которых последние, по имени Зияд оглы, раньше были владыками земель от Худаферинского моста до деревни Шулавер, что выше Красного моста в Грузии</u>. Когда Надир-шах добивался в Мугани персидского престола, то ганджинские ханы, преданные дому Сефевидов, воспротивились его желанию. Однако он, утвердившись на престоле, ограничился только ослаблением их власти, переселив многих из Карабага в Хорасан. Меликов же Бергушадского и Хамсинских подчинил главному правителю Азербайджана. Жителей магалов Карахского из числа переселенных Хулагу-ханом и Борчалинского, поселенных на границах Грузии шах Аббасом I, Надир поручил грузинскому валию и таким образом под властью ханов ганджинских остались только окрестности города Ганджи''.

I can provide translation, if required. The same information can be found in Mirza Adigezal bey’s book. ] 06:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

As for independence, if Persian shah failed to establish his control over the region, it was independent. ] 06:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It's published in Baku, 1991, and the text belongs to ultra-nationalist "historian" Z. Bunyatov. Clearly unreliable. As for independence, you have no source stating it.--] 17:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

:Sources don't necessarily have to be neutral as long as they're attributed properly. That's exactly what I did. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 05:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

:: It is a perfectly reliable source by a historian ], the original Persian text is well known in scientific community and no one ever complained about this edition. I quote it from the Russian historical website, which very carefully selects its sources. Also, the same information can be found in another Muslim chronicle, by Mirza Adigezal bey:

:: ''Гянджинские ханы, происходившие из Каджар и известные по имени Зияд-оглу,.. всему миру они были известны как беглербеки и сардары, облеченные властью и самостоятельностью. Граница гянджинского ханства с Гюрджистаном проходила выше ,,Сынык-керпю” (Сынык-керпю, по азербайджански — ,,Сломанный мост”, так называется Красный мост на р. Храме) близ ,,Сури-Даша” и с Азербайджаном у Худааферинского моста (Под Азербайджаном автор в данном случае имеет виду только южные части Азербайджана). Бывало время, когда от знамени правления гянджинских ханов на Дар-ус-сурур (Дар-ус-сурур — по-арабски буквально дом веселья, эпитет гор. Тифлиса) падала тень мира и спокойствия, все население Тифлиса подчинялось их власти. Гянджинские ханы на муганском курултае тайно и явно, с исключительным рвением стремились к тому, чтобы никто, кроме сефевидов, не был бы царем, чтобы никто, кроме них, не воссел на трон. Оказывается о всех их мыслях доносили Надир-шаху''…

:: ''Надир-шах, имея в виду, что потомство Зияд-оглу старинное и очаг их пережил много поколений, не счел удобным применить к ним иного наказания, как только того, что илатов Казаха и Бошчалу (Борчалов) со своими ханами подчинил эмирам Гюорджистана и высоко поставленному вали (Вали — наместник. Так иранцы титуловали царей Грузии). Население же Джеваншира, Отузики и Кебирли, входящее в состав илатов Карабаха, было приказано переселять в местность Сарахс Хорасанского вилайета. Было приказано отвести им там участок для постоянного поселения''.

:: ''Меликам Хамсе (Хамсе — по-арабски ,пятерица’. Так называли пять меликов Карабага.) было дано повеление о том, чтобы они сбросили с шеи знати и простонародья цепи покорности гянджинским ханам и считали бы себя свободными от них и всякие свои прошения и требования направляли бы непосредственно на имя властелина (Надир-шаха)''.

:: ''Таким образом, гянджинские ханы всецело лишились своих прав и полномочий, узда власти выпала из их рук, и они оказались в положении птицы с поломанным крылом''.

:: As you can see, this info can be verified from more than one source. ] 05:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

:: Yet another historical account providing the same information, Mirza Jaml Javanshir:

:: ''Глава вторая''

:: О'' ПОДДАНСТВЕ, ДРЕВНИХ ОБЫЧАЯХ И ПОРЯДКАХ КАРАБАГСКОГО ВИЛАЙЕТА''

:: ''Во времена пребывающих /ныне/ в раю сефевидских государей, находившихся в Иране, Карабагский вилайет, илаты, армянские магалы Хамсе, состоящие из магала /магалов/ Ризак, Варанда, Хачин, Чилябурд и Талыш, подчинялись гянджинскому беглярбеку. Хотя и до правления покойного Надир шаха среди илатов Джеваншира, Отузики, Баргушата и пр. имелись мелкие ханы, но и все они были подвластны елизаветпольскому беглярбеку. Даже и после того как Надир шах завоевал Тифлисский, Ганджинский, Эриванский, Нахичеванский и Карабагский вилайеты, у жителей и войск Рума, Карабагский вилайет в течение короткого времени оставался под властью елизаветтпосльского беглярбека, а иногда подчинялся азербайджанскому сардару. Среди илатов и в магалах также были ханы и мелики, которые исполняли государственную службу по поручению азербайджанского сардара. Такое положение существовало до 1160 мусульманского года, соотвествующего 1743 христианскому году, когда был убит Надир шах''. ] 06:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

:: So that is 3 different Muslim chronicles, confirming the fact that Karabakh belonged to the khans of Ganja before Karabakh khanate was created. ] 06:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

:: As for independence, the book of Mirza Jamal Javanshir book is titled:

:: НЕЗАВИСИМОЕ ПРАВЛЕНИЕ ПОКОЙНЫХ ХАНОВ КАРАБАГСКОГО ВИЛАЙЕТА ПАНАХ ХАНА И ИБРАГИМ ХАНА И РАЗНЫЕ СОБЫТИЯ, ОПИСАННЫЕ МИРЗОЙ ДЖАМАЛОМ КАРАБАГСКИМ ПО ПОРУЧЕНИЮ ГЛАВНОКОМАНДУЮЩЕГО ВОРОНЦОВА

:: Independent rule of the late khans of Karabakh vilayet Panakh khan abd Ibrahim khan and various events, described by Mirza Jamal of Karabakh on the instructions of the commander–in-chief Vorontsov. ] 07:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Jevanshir's text is about khan's independent behavior--this alone doesn't mean the khannate was an independent state. Whenever the central authority weakens, locals start acting independently--this doesn't mean creation of independent states. In historiagraphy, the Persian khannates of the era are generally considered semi-independent--this is basic knowledge. --] 16:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

: Just a question. If the khanate was not independent from Persia, why did Aga Mohammed shah invade it twice? No one invades his loyal provinces. He managed to capture Shusha after the second invasion, but was soon killed by his bodyguards and his army had to retreat. So Ibrahim khan was an independent ruler, but his small state could not exist on its own, and he had to accept suzerainty of Russia. Independence of khanate had much to do with two factors – weakness of central authority in Persia and enmity between Qajars and khans of Karabakh. ] 20:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

::The late Qajars were horrible rulers. During the 1800's and early 1900's the central government basically had no control. Iran became for federal in terms of provincial rulers making their own decisions, while at the same time still mainting loyalty to the state. This was the case all over Iran. The Qajars had lost control of basically everything, they were incompetent rulers (the worst dynasty of Iran infact) and they were forced to reasserting their control (central government) many times in different places.] 20:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

::: True. It was after Nadir shah’s death that some khanates became independent, while others were loyal to central authorities. For example, khanates of Ganja and Erivan were also ruled by Qajars and were always loyal to the ruling dynasty, while khanates of Karabakh and Quba strived for independence, but they all were eventually conquered by Russia. ] 20:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

::::Yes. I dont really know the dispute between you and Tigran, just thought I'd put in my 2 cents on the subject.] 20:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

In response to GM, in the 5th c. Persia's king attacked Armenia to strengthen his control. Yet Armenia was not independent of Persia, and if I stated otherwise, I would be branded a nationalist. Local authorities tend to *act* independently as central authority weakens, yet this alone doesn't establish an independent state. If Persia recognized khan as independent, or if the khan defeated Persia's attacking force, it might constitute establishment of independent statehood. --] 22:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

== Transfer/grant. ==

Regarding the sentence ''Moscow agreed to a division that left Zangezur to Armenia, while leaving Karabakh and Nakhichevan as parts of Azerbaijan.'' We have discussed the issue for weeks on the NK page, and it was made clear that stating "leave Karabakh in Azerbaijan" is unacceptable, regardles of what Kavburo said. Sources are all over the place when it comes to the choice of the verb, and we need to pick a neutral one. If GM dislikes "grant," then we can use the verb "be" (and provide the Kavburo quote separately). Namely:

''Moscow agreed to a division under which Nagorno-Karabakh would be under the control of Azerbaijan SSR.''

Zangezur and Nakhichevan are not at issue here.--] 22:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

: Zangezur and Nakhichevan are not an issue here, but since the fate of those 3 territories was decided at the same time and in the same package, they deserve a brief mention. Zangezur was a disputed territory, which was under the administration of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic pending the final resolution at the Paris Peace Conference. Armenia established a brief control over the territory when the Red Army invaded Azerbaijan, but later it was occupied by the Red Army. Zangezur was handed to Armenia by the Bolsheviks, after the telegram of Narimanov. ], please see some quotes here: ] and stop reverting the article. ] 11:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
::Total BS, Zankezur was controled by the US recognized Armenian army, the recognized republic by the US, that it was under an Azerbaijan republic which was never recognized de jure by any state in the world is simply the product of your imagination. Narimanov (who was the Azerbaijan's never recognized republic leader who had claims over more than half of the current republic of Armenia as Azeris soil) could say that Mars is part of the republic of Azerbaijan won't make it accurate. You don't own articles, stop POV pushing, it is about time that you learn that you are not the last word in everything that remotly touch Azerbaijan, and you don't own Misplaced Pages neither any articles. Zankezur was never penatrated by any foreign army, it was kept as an Armenian bastillion, and they still remained even after Kars was left without defense. There never was any pratical claim over Zankezur, its claim being Azeris wasn't even Tartars request at first but rather an Ottoman one which find it the ultimate link, linking the entire Turkdom, it was the road that the Ottoman army was meant to take for its Panturkic ambitions. That Narimanov has recycled any BS thrown by there and here doesn't make it ultimate truth. ] ] 17:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

::: Fadix, this has been discussed endlessly. Zangezur and Karabakh had an Azeri governor Sultanov, appointed by Azerbaijani government and affirmed by the British command. See the quote:

::: ''Upon the Ottoman withdrawal, General Andranik made an attempt to extend Armenian rule over this disputed territory, but on December 1 Thomson asked him to cease his military operations. Furthermore, as of mid-January 1919, the British general put Nagorno-Karabagh together with the neighboring Zangezur uezd under provisional Azerbaijani administration. Armenian reactions became even more heated when Thomson confirmed the nomination of Khosrow Sultanov as governor of the two areas. Thomson's comment was that the British occupation was not an opportunity for revenge''.

::: ''Tadeusz Swietochowski, Russia and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition. ISBN: 0231070683''

::: So please stop making baseless claims and remove the tag. Zangezur was given to Armenia by the Soviets. Even pro-Armenian Walker says so. I can provide more quotes if it is required. ] 06:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::: Another quote, this time from an Armenian source:

::: ''The British command at Baku came to accept the Azerbaijani rationale for provisional jurisdiction in Karabagh and Zangezur and assented to the appointment of Dr. Khosrov Bek Sultanov as governor general''.

::: ''After Armenia was sovietized at the end of 1920, Soviet Azerbaijan ceded Karabagh and the other disputed districts to Armenia, but the decision was soon reversed. Then, in 1923, a part but not all of Mountainous Karabagh was formed into an autonomous region (oblast') within Soviet Azerbaijan''.

::: Richard G. Hovannisian. The Armenian People From Ancient To Modern Times: Foreign Dominion to Statehood: The Fifteenth Century to the Twentieth Century ISBN: 140396422X

::: So Fadix, please explain what is totally disputed now? ] 07:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::: Also Fadix, if you make another personal attack on me, I will have to inform the admins. Consider yourself warned. ] 07:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The plan to appease Turkey is admitted even by pro-Azeri Cornell, and it should remain in the article:

''The ‘Treaty of Brotherhood and Friendship’ between the Soviet Union and republican Turkey included a provision that both Nakhjivan and Karabakh were to be placed under the control of the Azerbaijani SSR. It seems as if this was a concession on the part of Stalin to the newly founded Turkish republic in Ankara; Stalin was initially positively inclined to Kemal Atatürk, whom he saw as a potential ally at the time. Thus Atatürk was hostile to any territorial arrangements favoring Soviet Armenia, since a strong Armenia could have
potential territorial claims on Turkey.''

http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/inside/publications/1999_NK_Book.pdf Cornell, Svante E. The Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict, Uppsala: Department of East European Studies, April 1999, p. 8

As for Zangezur, yes, it has been discussed at length, and it was made clear that it was part of Armenia. The British decision had no legal value, since the Brits soon withdrew from Caucasus. The Armenians always remained in firm control of Zangezur. Here are a few quotes from past discussions that were omitted here.

''However, the British were not so successful in installing their protégé south in the
other highland region of Zangezur. They wanted to put him there to 'maintain order'. The
Armenians retorted that there was order there, and by a policy of bluff, demonstrations and
armed resistance, they were able to frighten Suttleworth into quitting Zangezur's capital Goris
in a hurry, and successfully defying his fellow officers' decisions.'' Walker, Survival etc. p 272.

Even pro Azeri Cornell states:

''By 1919, however, the Dashnaks were driven out of Nakhjivan, and although they stayed in power in Zangezur until 1921, they were soon toppled in Yerevan as well.'' Cornell, p 8.--] 10:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

: Same pro-Armenian Walker you are referring to says:

: ''Although Soviet Azerbaijan agreed, in a fraternal gesture, to hand over to Soviet Armenia the disputed regions of Mountainous Karabagh, Zangezur and Nakhichevan, of those territories only Zangezur was actually attached''.

: <u>Christopher J. Walker. Armenia: The Survival of a Nation.</u> ISBN 041504684

: ] 10:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Walker and 100000 sources use 100000 words with respect to those areas--joined, annexed, remained in, ceded to (both Armenia and Azerbaijan). The extensive discussion is available to readers in ]. They don't change the factual information provided by both cornell and walker--that Dashnaks/Armenians remained in firm control of Zangezur. Zangezur is not even an issue in an article about Shusha. --] 11:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

And the idea that Soviets were trying to appease Armenians in 1921 is absurd. Taking NK, Kars, and Nakh away from them, and leaving them only with Zangezur (where Armenians had control anyway) could only infuriate Armenians, not appease them, (and it did, which is why they took back some of it in 1990's)--] 11:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

: Walker which you referred to says that Zangezur was attached to Armenia by the Soviets. Zangezur had an Azeri governor and was not part of Armenia and was under the occupation of Red Army at the time. Stop edit warring, respect your own sources. ] 11:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

He also says, in a different page, that Karabakh was "joined" to Azerbaijan. These words are used interchangebly by various sources. The Azeri governor's claims were never recognized, and even under Red Army's occupation, Dashnaks remained in control of Zangezur (by resisting the red army). The issue of Zangezur wasn't even part of the Turkish-Soviet negotiations. Please stop your disruptive behavior, and respect all the sources.--] 11:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

== Fighting in Shusha in March 1920 ==

Before the events in March in Shusha there was a truce, brokered by the British. Karabakh and Zangezur remained under Azerbaijani jurisdiction, pending final resolution at the Paris Peace Conference. The Armenian militants broke the truce, when they started a surprise attack at the Azerbaijani garrisons in Khankendi and Askeran and the Azeri quarter of Shusha, when Azeris were celebrating Novruz. These attacks failed, and the Armenian part of Shusha was destroyed as result of fighting. Even the Armenian sources acknowledge that it was the Armenian side who started the hostilities and broke the truce:

''Failure at Khankend sealed the doom of Shushi. As planned, the Varanda militia entered Shushi on the evening of March 22, supposedly to receive its pay and to felicitate Governor-General Sultanov on the occasion of Novruz Bairam. That same night, about 100 armed men led by Nerses Azbekian slipped into the city to disarm the Azerbaijani garrison in the Armenian quarter. But everything went wrong. The Varanda militiamen spent most of the night eating and drinking and were late in taking up their assigned positions, whereas Azbekian's detachment, failing to link up with the militia, began firing on the Azerbaijani fort from afar, awakening the troops and sending them scurrying to arms. It was only then that the Varanda militiamen were roused and began seizing Azerbaijani officers quartered in Armenian homes. The confusion on both sides continued until dawn, when the Azerbaijanis learned that their garrison at Khankend had held and, heartened, began to spread out into the Armenian quarter. The fighting took the Armenians of Shushi by surprise. Several thousand fled under cover of the dense fog by way of Karintak into the Varanda countryside''.

<u>Richard G. Hovannisian. The Republic of Armenia, Vol. III: From London to Sèvres, February-August 1920</u> ] 07:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::I don't see anywehere saying Armenians "aimed at cleansing the town from the Azeri population" That part of the sentence should be removed. It says they attacked when Azeris were celebrating Novruz, but doesn't say they wanted to cleanse the town from Azeri population. ] 19:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::: It is an Armenian source, isn’t it? Why do you think it would say that? But it confirmed that it was the Armenian militants who started the fighting in the city. If they had taken over, the Azeri population would surely have been treated the same as the Azeri population of Baku in 1918. ] 07:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop imagineering what would have happened if that or this was done or if this thing was done and then this certean thing should have happened. Instead you should state the real facts not what would have happened. If you want to countinue your way than I'll countinue my way. I am sick and tierd of your racist hater views. ] 07:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

::ROOB, I suggest you watch your ]. - ] ] 11:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

: When was I a racist hater? It is true that both sides treated the civilian population mercilessly. Armenian sources don’t support what Azeri sources say about the aims of the attack, but let’s remove that part for the sake of neutrality. Sources on both sides agree that fighting broke out after the Armenian militants attacked the Azeri positions in Shusha. ] 07:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

==Dispute==

What is the dispute about? - ] ] 12:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

GM wants to say that the Kars treaty and Kavburo decision was meant to appease Armenia as well. Me, Fadix, and Roob believe it doesn't make sense, considering the decisions favored Azerbaijan. GM also wants to include info about Zangezur--we believe it's irrelevant to an article about Shusha. And it was not part of the discussions between Turkey and Moscow.--] 12:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:I don't see on page 8 that it appeased anyone. If the source doesn't support it it should be taken out. Am I looking at the wrong page? Can you give a quote? - ] ] 12:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


''The ‘Treaty of Brotherhood and Friendship’ between the Soviet Union and republican Turkey included a provision that both Nakhjivan and Karabakh were to be placed under the control of the Azerbaijani SSR. It seems as if this was a concession on the part of Stalin to the newly founded Turkish republic in Ankara; Stalin was initially positively inclined to Kemal Atatürk, whom he saw as a potential ally at the time. Thus Atatürk was hostile to any territorial arrangements favoring Soviet Armenia, since a strong Armenia could have potential territorial claims on Turkey''

This makes it clear that the decision was a concession to Turkey, since Soviet Union wanted to befriend TUrkey.--] 13:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

: The dispute is over this paragraph:

: ''In order to attract Armenian public support, Bolsheviks promised to resolve the issue of the disputed territories, including Karabakh, in favor of Armenia. However, Moscow also had far-reaching plans concerning ], hoping that it would, with a little help from Russia, develop along Communist lines. Needing to appease Turkey and Armenia at the same time, Moscow agreed to a division under which Karabakh and Nakhichevan would be under control of Azerbaijan, and Zangezur would be under control of Armenia''.

: Tigran and Fadix remove any mention of Zangezur. There were 3 territories, which were claimed by both countries, namely Karabakh, Zangezur and Nakhichevan. Moscow established borders, according to which Zangezur was part of Armenia, while the other 2 were parts of Azerbaijan. Now Tigran claims that Zangezur has always been part of Armenia despite the region having an Azeri governor appointed by the British. ] 13:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The appointment was never materialized. Armenians remained in control. And this is about Shusha--Zangezur is not relevant here. We are not including info about Kars.--] 13:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::If all three were under dispute and dealt with in the same agreement, they should all be included. - ] ] 13:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that Z wasn't dealt with in the same agreement. The quote above says it all. The Treaty assigned NK and Nakh. to Azerbaijan. Nothing about Zangezur.--] 13:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

: It is strange that Tigran refers to Cornell, who says on the same page 8:

: ''In the following years, three separate republics existed, but turmoil continued, mainly as the Dashnaks pursued their irredentist claims on their neighbours. They had territorial claims on both Georgia (the Akhalkalaki and Gocharli regions which are still today predominantly Armenian populated) and Azerbaijan (Karabakh, Zangezur, and Nakhjivan)''. ] 13:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

: Btw, the treaty does not mention Karabakh, only Nakhichevan. Check the full text of the document. ] 13:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Cornell mentions both Nakhichevan and NK in the treaty of Brotherhood. Not Zangezur. And yes, Zangezur was claimed by both Azerbaijan and Armenia. But Armenia had control over it. --] 13:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

: Cornell says that Dashnaks had territorial claims to Azerbaijan, particularly Zangezur. ] 13:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't say "particularly." He simply lists the disputed territories. Of course he does it in his pro-Azeri biased manner. --] 13:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

: Text of the ]: And Cornell lists Azerbaijani territories, claimed by Dashnaks. ] 13:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Cornell lists disputed territories with Azerbaijan. And he states that Armenians remained in control of Zangezur til 1921. We don't cite Wiki articles. Instead, we have Cornell here who states that Nakhichevan and NK were part of negotiations with TUrkey. Zangezur wasn't --] 13:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

: I do not cite a wiki article, I refer you to the text of the treaty of Kars. Read for yourself and see what it says. ] 14:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Cornell talks about the Treaty of Brotherhood. Not Kars.--] 14:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, where is the text of the Treaty of Brotherhood? - ] ] 15:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no way that you could appease a country by giving a territory (Zangezur) which already was controlled by Armenia and then claim that you are appeaseing Armenia by giving a territory that already belonged to Armenia. It was simply appeaseing Turkey by giving Karabakh and Nakhichevan to Azerbaijan and leaving Zangezur to Armenia. TigranTheGreat made the sentence the way it should be, but you GM had to change it because of your racist view towards Armenia. ] 20:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Francis, we don't just rely on primary sources, but secondary as well. Cornell (quote by me above) clearly states that the Treaty of Brotherhood dealt with both Nakhichevan and NK, no mention of Zangezur. If you can see from the text, the Treaty was signed before the July/June Kavburo decisions (the one that we beat to death in August discussions). Kars was signed in October, way after the dust had settled. Kars may have been confirming Brotherhood, but doesn't mean they had the exact text.--] 02:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

: I repeat what I said on the other talk page. I don’t mind using Cornell and Walker, if we use them throughout this and other articles. I would like to remind everyone that both Cornell and Walker stated that NK was left by the Soviets within Azerbaijan, and it was Tigran who rejected references to those 2 sources. I don’t think we should use the sources selectively, i.e. only when they suit a certain purpose.

: Also, there were only 2 Treaties signed between Turkey and Russia at that time, ] and ]. I provided the text of the Treaty of Kars, and here’s the text of the Treaty of Moscow (in Russian): and its description in the Armenian website (also in Russian): As you can see, it says nothing about Karabakh. ] 06:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

: I suggest removing any mention of Turkey with regard to Karabakh. The role of that country in the settlement of the dispute over NK is not obvious and is not based on reliable sources. Turkey played a significant role in the issue of Nakhichevan, but had nothing to do with Karabakh. ] 08:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You find Cornell reliable, and he says Turkey was involved. So, we should use it. Your site of moscow treaty is not reliable--it's a blog.--] 09:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you find the full texts of all the treaties/agreements in English (or French or Romanian) please. - ] ] 09:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Turkeys role is clear, and both Cornell (pro-Azeri) and Walker agree. Now, if ROOB is fine with it (after all, he will be dealing with GM, after I leave this page), we can leave out Nakhichevan (and Zangezur). But Turkey's role should be mentioned. No, no text from a reliable site.--] 10:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

: Once again, check the texts of both treaties and try finding any reference to Karabakh. Even the Armenian site describing the treaty never mentions Karabakh . Also, both Cornell and Walker agree that NK was left in Azerbaijan, but you object to inclusion of that info. I don't think such selective use of sources is acceptable. ] 10:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

But we don't have a reliable text of the brotherhood treaty. Walker says "NK was joined with Azerbaijan." Let's use that.--] 10:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact, both Cornell and Walker state that NK was given to Azerb. under Turkey's pressure. Here is walker:

''Although Soviet Azerbaijan agreed, in a fraternal gesture, to hand over to Soviet Armenia the disputed regions of Mountainous Karabagh, Zangezur and Nakhichevan, of those territories only Zangezur was actually attached. The reason was that when the status of these lands came to be formally laid down, the objections of Kemalist Turkey were taken more seriously than the wishes of the Sovietised Armenians.''

So, a pro-Azeri source and Walker agree on Turkey's role. That's enough to include Turkey here.--] 11:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

: The same Walker in the same paragraph also states that Zangezur was attached to Armenia by Soviets. Why should we include one statement and omit the other? ] 11:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

::Both statements should be included as they are both relevant. - ] ] 11:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

::As long as that part of the sentence stays neutral it is o.k. with me, but it shouldn't be reverted to the old GM's views which was not neutral. It was very offending to say "Bolshviks appeased Armenia by giving Zangezur to Armenia." Turkey was being appeased not Armenia, by giving Karabakh and Nakhichevan to Azerbaijan. ] 19:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:24, 5 April 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Shusha article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconAzerbaijan High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijanWikiProject icon
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconArmenia High‑importance
WikiProject iconShusha is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconArtsakh High‑importance
WikiProject iconShusha is within the scope of WikiProject Artsakh, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Artsakh and Artsakhians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArtsakhWikipedia:WikiProject ArtsakhTemplate:WikiProject ArtsakhArtsakh
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCities
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Stop blindly reverts

Both @AntonSamuel: and @TagaworShah: are ignoring Template:Infobox settlement. What's the point?

Mistakes listed:

  • Azerbaijani and Armenian names are in bold (wrong)
  • Azerbaijani is not even italic (wrong)
  • Shushi being named equal to main name despite being not the article name (wrong) it should be other_name
  • Mention of non-English demonyms (very wrong), what's the point? Conme on
  • Inclusion map of the dissolving Republic of Artsakh, that's not even controlling this place since 2020

The 2021 "consensus" simply ignores these things. Beshogur (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

No blind revert. 1. a good and balanced stance - in the territory of the former Nagorno-Karabakh autonomous oblast. 2. no opinion. 3. the disputed history of the town and the tragic consequences of the confilct are very clear. 4. ridiculous - filler 5. the map is relevant - intention to remove it comes from a political stance/desire. AntonSamuel (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
First we're talking about the infobox. I don't care what you do in the body of the article unless it's wrong. Misplaced Pages isn't based on outdated information and emotions. And your answer "ridiculous" for me following the rules based on template is ridiculous. Is that your answer? Map is not any slighest relevant anymore. Republic of Artsakh is dissolving itself, and it's not even controlling the area. intention to remove it comes from a political stance/desire what do you mean lol? I don't gain anything by removing some bytes on internet. I told my reasonings based on wikipedia template, and you're not even respecting it. What kind of comment is that of accusing my edits based on political stance/desire. This goes into personal attacks. Beshogur (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
@Beshogur Please stop insulting your fellow Misplaced Pages editors, these are not blind reverts, your edits go against an established consensus among users, it is on you to seek a new consensus. The MOS varies among articles due to differing consensus on how certain articles should be formatted, if you read the guidelines this is to be expected and does not give you the right to change a consensus without discussion especially with AA3 sanctions active. Accusing your fellow editors of acting on emotions is also a personal attack btw and not civil, please remember Misplaced Pages:Civility in your talk page discussions because this is not the first time i’ve seen you been uncivil to people of differing beliefs to your own. TagaworShah (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Accusing your fellow editors of acting on emotions this was put here to everyone, not to a certain user. He's talking about tragic stuff, that's what I said. Also do I accuse him of outdated information? Read my whole sentence. your talk page discussions because this is not the first time i’ve seen you been uncivil to people of differing beliefs to your own show me some examples, I never point to users based on their ideas. It's also the first time I'm interacting with you.
Maybe comment on the infobox that's been wrongly used here. Don't turn the topic into personal beef. Beshogur (talk) 19:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
I patrol a lot of the pages regarding Armenia and Azerbaijan so i’ve seen a few comments, it’s nothing personal, I just ask for you to not accuse editors of bad faith for simple things like maintaining a consensus. The infobox can be formatted a variety of ways based on the consensus among users, there is a MOS but when there is consensus for a different style, especially in a contentious and controversial area that supersedes it, so I would recommend starting a new conversation about the infobox and seeking consensus per Misplaced Pages:BRD. TagaworShah (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
It is interesting that the edits @Beshogur made here were instantly reverted, but the same edit they made to the Stepanakert remains untouched. Does the issue emerge only when it doesn't favor a particular POV? Nemoralis (talk) 08:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
No, please revert those too, I don’t have rollback abilities so it’s hard to manually revert these cases every single time. TagaworShah (talk) 08:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Importance of Maintaing Armenian Perspective in this Article

In accordance with WP:5P, I claim that this article currently only represents an Azeri POV (previous edits which introduced Armenian POV have been constantly reverted (which goes against WP:BRD-NOT), therefore no one can claim that this article currently represents a neutral point of view per WP:5P2). I have made BOLD edits that attempt to reconcile points of view into a more neutral article: Introduced neutral POV on the establishment of the city. Considering undisputable evidence of Armenians inhabiting the region for millennia, and the fact that the location of Shushi is such that it is an ideal location to establish a city in the bronze age or even the middle ages, it's impossible that the city was only founded in 1715. It's also highly improbable that the city was founded by Azeris or the Shah, since Armenian presence in the region predates any Azeri or Arabic presence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HyeProfile (talk • contribs) 16:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

There was a very long discussion and RFC about that. The present version is based on consensus. Please discuss and reach consensus at talk before making any changes. Grandmaster 14:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Categories: