This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) at 03:08, 5 February 2013 (Robot: Archiving 10 threads (older than 90d) to Talk:Shusha/Archive 4.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 03:08, 5 February 2013 by MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) (Robot: Archiving 10 threads (older than 90d) to Talk:Shusha/Archive 4.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| 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. |
|
| 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: 3 months  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vereschagin?
The image "Armenian House in Shusha" most likely was not made by Vereschagin, although this looks like graphic produced by him during his visit to Shusha. Yesterday I found this link to Google Books as reference . See page 200, and picture numbered 88 called "An Armenian drawing room." Even if produced by Vereschagin, the description on page 201 says "Armenian drawing house in Soucha." Sprutt (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Must be a mistake. The people on the picture look nothing like Armenians, they are typical Muslim people of the region, in long traditional hats. It is better to find the original drawing by Vereshagin in a Russian source. Grandmaster 18:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- They look very Armenian, in long traditional hats. Sprutt (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- I doubt that there was such thing as a "(with)drawing room" in Caucasian houses. Meowy 02:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Same picture classified as Armenian guest house can be found in Houri Berberian. "Armenians And The Iranian Constitutional Revolution Of 1905-1911: The Love For Freedom Has No Fatherland." Westview Press (January 26, 2001). Thank you for your "opinion," Meowy. Interesting opinions you have sometimes. Sprutt (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- In a Russian collection of works by Vereshagin published in 1896 the same picture is titled "Hall in the house of a Tatar in Shusha". You can download the whole book here: It is copyright free, since it was published more than 100 years ago. Figuier clearly made a mistake, since the original source had a different title. Note that Figuier was not the author of the picture, Vereshagin was. Also, the people on the picture look like typical Muslim Turkic people of the region, see for example File:Bek.jpg. Grandmaster 08:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Not convincing. File:Bek.jpg could be Armenian bek in Karabakh (Vereshagin did not specify religion or ethnicity and Armenians and Tatars wore similar costumes). Here are Armenian costume and . The download is difficult and is not for free. This does not measure up to facsimile edition that is on Google Book and other publications. Are there are opinions from credible secondary sources saying it was mistaken? How do we know that Figuier was not the author of the picture? His book has dozens of identically made litographs. All of them Vereshagin? I think it is not Vereshagin and there was mistake in Russia made in 1896 by those who confused Figuier's pic with Vereshagin's.(talk) 15:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC) Sprutt (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Why is it not? The bek picture is by Gagarin, the original source says Tatar bek from Karabakh. It was a portrait made during his travels to the region. Your pictures state no source or author. The 1896 book is also from google, it might be available for download in your country. It was written by Vereshagin's biographer. Figuer does not mention the author of the picture, and as far as I know he never traveled to the region. I see no reason why Vereshagin's biographer would ascribe to him paintings that he did not make. If anything, it is more a reliable and expert source than Figuer. Also, there are other Russian books that give the same description of the picture. Grandmaster 17:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- This is the scan of the same image with description in old Russian: It is hosted on the website of the Russian Ministry of Culture. They know better who the author was. Grandmaster 17:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- It can easily be Russian mistake made 100 years ago by Vereshagin biographer. Figuer's book features his own pics. Armenians and tatars wore similar cloths. Google books does not provide Vereshagin biographer's book. Sprutt (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- The website of the Russian Ministry of Culture is created by art experts. And no, Figuer's book does not feature his own pictures, there are other Vereshagin's pictures there. Grandmaster 17:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- It can easily be Russian mistake made 100 years ago by Vereshagin biographer. Figuer's book features his own pics. Armenians and tatars wore similar cloths. Google books does not provide Vereshagin biographer's book. Sprutt (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Not convincing. File:Bek.jpg could be Armenian bek in Karabakh (Vereshagin did not specify religion or ethnicity and Armenians and Tatars wore similar costumes). Here are Armenian costume and . The download is difficult and is not for free. This does not measure up to facsimile edition that is on Google Book and other publications. Are there are opinions from credible secondary sources saying it was mistaken? How do we know that Figuier was not the author of the picture? His book has dozens of identically made litographs. All of them Vereshagin? I think it is not Vereshagin and there was mistake in Russia made in 1896 by those who confused Figuier's pic with Vereshagin's.(talk) 15:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC) Sprutt (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Luis Figuer was a top scientist of his time. He knew better than modern "art scientists" from Russia. He might known better than Vereschagin himself. Sprutt (talk) 17:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- How could Louis Figuier know better than the modern and the 19th century Russian art historians? In every collection of Vereshagin's works the image is described as the hall in a Tatar house. It is very unlikely that no one in Russia knows the real name of the work. It is also interesting that Figuer for some reason cropped the picture, cutting out at least one figure, while the Russian reproductions show the entire work. This shows that the image in Figuer's book is not an accurate copy of the original, to which he may have not the access. Also, Vereshagin's picture is from 1865, and not 1873, as claimed in Figuer's book. If he made his picture in 1873, then Vereshagin's picture already existed by that time. Grandmaster 18:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- I hear you. On balance though we should trust the immediately identifiable Luis Fuguirer in 1873 more than Vereshagin's biographers of 1896. The website LostArt.ru is about controversies and it presents the picture as controversial. It is about lost art and if this pic was lost it is easy to misidentify its author or what it depicts. Sprutt (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Russian sources are also immediately identifiable. Lost or not, the image was clearly by Vereshagin, since Figuier was not an artist, and never traveled to Shusha. Figuier took it from Vereshagin, cropped it, cutting out a large section, and dated it 1873, while Vereshagin's work was created in 1865. Therefore the Russian sources are more trustworthy, since they are written by specialists on the author. That includes experts from the Russian Ministry of Culture. Grandmaster 19:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- I hear you. On balance though we should trust the immediately identifiable Luis Fuguirer in 1873 more than Vereshagin's biographers of 1896. The website LostArt.ru is about controversies and it presents the picture as controversial. It is about lost art and if this pic was lost it is easy to misidentify its author or what it depicts. Sprutt (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- This is all your personal interpretation. Are there reputable secondary sources discussing this controversy and supporting your theory about Figuier's trampling with the image, and/or confirming that it depics Tartars and not Armenians? Sprutt (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Why do we need secondary sources for that? By the same token, are there secondary sources that the Russian publications of Vereshagin's works contain wrong titles? Grandmaster 05:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- How could Louis Figuier know better than the modern and the 19th century Russian art historians? In every collection of Vereshagin's works the image is described as the hall in a Tatar house. It is very unlikely that no one in Russia knows the real name of the work. It is also interesting that Figuer for some reason cropped the picture, cutting out at least one figure, while the Russian reproductions show the entire work. This shows that the image in Figuer's book is not an accurate copy of the original, to which he may have not the access. Also, Vereshagin's picture is from 1865, and not 1873, as claimed in Figuer's book. If he made his picture in 1873, then Vereshagin's picture already existed by that time. Grandmaster 18:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- In a Russian collection of works by Vereshagin published in 1896 the same picture is titled "Hall in the house of a Tatar in Shusha". You can download the whole book here: It is copyright free, since it was published more than 100 years ago. Figuier clearly made a mistake, since the original source had a different title. Note that Figuier was not the author of the picture, Vereshagin was. Also, the people on the picture look like typical Muslim Turkic people of the region, see for example File:Bek.jpg. Grandmaster 08:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Le Tour du monde, Volumes 19-20, published in 1869, describes the same picture as "Salon d'une maison tatare, a Schoucha", by Vereshchagin: So clearly Figuier made a mistake in his book, which was published 4 years later. I think this resolves the issue. Grandmaster 08:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- That makes sense. Although this does not resolve the issue outright, now I am more inclined to believe it is pic showing Tatars rather than Armenians. Good example of how contentious issues should be settled. Sprutt (talk) 13:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
This is a picture of Azerbaijani bek, not Armenian. Read description:"Bek Tatare du Karabakh" (in 19 century Azerbaijani people were called Tatars). --Interfase (talk) 07:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Bournoutian
The article cites Bournoutian, saying that Shusha was "a town and an ancient fortress in the Armenian Principality of Varanda". However below, in Shusha#Foundation the article says: "According to George A. Bournoutian commenting the chronicler, prior to construction of the fortress by Panah Ali khan there were no buildings at that location and it was used as a cropland and pasture by the people of the nearby village of Shoshi". That needs a clarification because Bournoutian's claims seem to contradict one another, this is also contradictory to what Mirza Jamal Javanshir Qarabaghi writes. Brandmeister 11:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Categories: