Talk:Aghdam District

message: This article needs more citations. - FrancisTyers · 20:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Verify

message: I removed the following:
In June 1, 2006 it was reported that Armenian armed forces were torching down several occupied villages of Azerbaijan’s region Aghdam for ten days long. The local residents said they heard explosions at nights and carrying of building materials by armored equipment in May. APA's provincial bureau reported that Yusifjanli, Novruzlu, Baghbanli, Seybali, Sarijali and Bash Garvand villages have been reduced to ashes. Aghdam and new settlements in Shikhbabali, Marzili, Khidirli, Goytapa villages were seen by eyewitnesses blaze. It was also reported that the Armenian soldiers were taking all things from the houses, and new settlements are constructed in foothills. The newly established 150-house settlement constructed by Armenians in Gulabi village of Aghdam can be observed from the villages near the front line.    On June 13, 2006 it was confirmed by Azerbaijani authorities that the fire had spread to the forest and Azerbaijani controlled areas were refugees from Karabakh had settled, the refugees again transferred to another settlement for safety reasons   .
Why? Because the only sources for these claims are "Azernews.net" and "Today.Az". I'm not saying the news reports are wrong, but they're also very biased. Can we get a better reference for this please? Thanks. —Khoikhoi 23:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone added it back again, and I will once again remove it.  Why?  Because I know it is false.  ALL of the Azeri houses in pure Azeri villages were completely looted and then burned as soon as they were captured.  There was nothing left of value except the actual bricks and the pipes in the wall, which to this day are being collected by scavengers.  That there are fires is also nothing remarkable - I see them all the time in Armenia.  There were two under my apartment in the park in CENTRAL Yerevan, and I saw a half a dozen in the fields yesterday on a 45 minute drive back from Garni.  So fires are just set all the time here all over Armenia, no villages were targetted, I am sure of it.  Which means the only thing that is possibly true in the article is a new settlement being built.  I don't know first hand about Gulabi, so I can't say for sure, but except for that the whole paragraph is pretty pointless and just plain false.  --RaffiKojian 03:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, and similar news has been re-added once more. Sorry but you will need a better source than az.news or similar media. - Fedayee 03:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: hey, Raffi, I don't understand what you are saying: "ALL of the Azeri houses in pure Azeri villages were completely looted and then burned as soon as they were captured." and "That there are fires is also nothing remarkable - I see them all the time in Armenia". So, do you think Armenians burned villages in Agdam or not? --12insan 05:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed paragraph 

message: Added sentence by weburbanist  about vandalism in Agdam and graffiti-covered mosque, inc ref. Baku87 (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. The website is not reliable, only Azeri media reports of alleged vandalism by Armenian military. If we can find solid references that are reliable than please add the same sentence again. --Namsos (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here's a report in Russian mass media:  Grandmaster (talk) 04:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

text:  And here's a view to the city from top of the only remaining building - the mosque:  You can see that the city is completely ruined and looted. --Grandmaster (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry I don't read Russian. Also there was a war, I don't think it is necessary to say it was 'looted'.--Namsos (talk) 05:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

text: If there is regular army involved, it could be a chance to avoid looting. Unfortunately, the fact of systematic looting of Azeri villages and towns by Armenian military forces were way too common. If there was no looting by Armenians, who would do that? Is someone could seriously consider Azeris looting and ruining their own houses? That would most preposterous. Who else then, Martians ??  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplygr8 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: While I am not saying that the claims made in this article are 100% false, I believe that it is exceptionally biased in favor of the Azeri side. Please refrain from using Azeri (and Armenian) websites to document, as both sides are inherently biased. I have thus flagged this article for neutrality.  IBstupid (talk) 06:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: but one makes sense grammatically. :P "nagorno-karabakh forces" is a valid short-hand, just as "azerbaijani forces" is for "republic of azerbaijan forces"
Actually "Armenian forces" is more valid short-hand description used by many sources. --Quantum666 (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the Armenian army though, it's the Karabakh army. That they are ethnic Armenian doesn't matter. --Golbez (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's your understanding of "Armenian". But sources use Armenian or Karabakh Armenian about these forces. --Quantum666 (talk) 05:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest to use Karabakh Armenian forces. --Quantum666 (talk) 05:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That redundant, I don't see why we can't say Nagorno-Karabakh forces. We don't say Azerbaijani Turkish forces. --Golbez (talk) 13:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why can't we say Karabakh Armenian forces? --Quantum666 (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the name of the country is not Karabakh Armenia, it's Nagorno-Karabakh. --Golbez (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The name of the country is not Nagorno-Karabakh but NKR and it represents only Armenians. Nagorno-Karabakh is the region's name and the region is the motherland not only for Armenians but for Azeris and other nationalities. --Quantum666 (talk) 05:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The country's long-form name is Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. The country's short-form name is Nagorno-Karabakh. I don't see why we have to repeat "Republic" for every mention of it, we never do for Azerbaijan. And I don't know what your second sentence has to do with this. --Golbez (talk) 12:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that Nagorno-Karabakh is a disputed territory and actually means territory but not a state or a community which has a conflict with Azerbaijan. Since Nagorno-Karabakh is a disputed territory when saying Nagorno-Karabakh instead of NKR you show your opinion to whom the territory should belong. --Quantum666 (talk) 12:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, but thanks for accusing. Many before you have tried. But would you be fine with changing it to "NKR forces"? And heck, a large chunk of the Republic of Azerbaijan is also disputed territory, having been controlled by Nagorno-Karabakh for nearly 20 years. --Golbez (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You've misunderstood me. There is no accusation at all. Everyone has a right to have his own opinion. But writing your opinion in WP articles is not a good idea I think. I have my opinion as well but I try to forget about it when editing articles. I think you do too but "forgetting" is really difficult. --Quantum666 (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I quite assure you, none of this is my opinion. Shall I find some quotes from people who have accused me of being an Azeri sympathizer? What annoys me is when people accuse me of caring. All I care about is keeping the nationalist bullshit out of Wikipedia. --Golbez (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize if my words insulted you but as I have already explained above your position was not neutral in this case. At least your choice between the terms used by different sources was not an example of perfect neutrality and was closer to the Armenian POV alhough you haven't used arguements Armenian wikipedians usually use. Maybe "keeping the nationalist bullshit out of Wikipedia" also affects your neutrality and you see threats where nothing "nationalistic" exists. --Quantum666 (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

text:  Although a large chunk of the Republic of Azerbaijan is a disputed territory nobody pretends to have "Azerbaijan rayon". --Quantum666 (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

text:  "NKR forces" is OK for me at the moment. --Quantum666 (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  NKR forces 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Absheron Rayon which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 07:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Agdam District. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222054150/http://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/sng89_reg1.php to http://demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/sng89_reg1.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101114180124/http://www.azstat.org/statinfo/demoqraphic/en/010.shtml to http://www.azstat.org/statinfo/demoqraphic/en/010.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified