This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Wikipedia. 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 AzerbaijanAzerbaijan articles
Aghdam 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ghost towns, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ghost towns on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ghost townsWikipedia:WikiProject Ghost townsTemplate:WikiProject Ghost townsGhost town articles
The article when read using google translate is too vague. It seems to talk about a rural district of Agdam being renamed Akna and being incorporated into Askeran? If it is the whole of the town of Agdam that is included and if there are 360 residents there, then Agdam is not a "ghost town" with "0" population. Meowy02:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just read Nooit meer een thuiswedstrijd by Arthur Huizinga, and the author reports seeing and speaking to residents in Aghdam --- they are generally very poor people who came there for the mere reason of finding some shelter. sephia karta | dimmi19:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added archive links to one external link on Agdam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
I have just added archive links to one external link on Agdam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
NAn editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=totrue
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Since, as Jenks points out, there are no sources provided, and the vote tally is almost equal, I see no consensus here. — Amakuru (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused, people seem to be supporting saying it should be at "Agdam" yet supporting the proposal would involve moving it to "Ağdam"? --Golbez (talk) 05:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I saw "no reason to drop the diacritic" and just ... misunderstood. And then the appeal to consistency despite the articles given without the diacritic. --Golbez (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't directly mention consistency but noted that the other places in the area use diacritics in their article titles. I mentioned Battle of Aghdamet al. (after User:In ictu oculi's post) so that others would be aware of the articles' existence and the possibility that they might need to be moved if this article is moved. — AjaxSmack19:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. For WP:common name reasons. Agdam is by far the most common spelling seen in sources, and since its notability is overwhelmingly due to its current deserted status there is no spelling used by its population to consider. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the diacritic "g" spelling has no long history behind it - it only dates from 1991, see Azerbaijani alphabet. The Ağdam spelling had been in official use for just two years before Azerbaijan lost control of the place. Before that, its name would have been rendered in the Cyrillic alphabet, with Agdam being the transliteration of that Cyrillic. It continues to be spelt Ağdam by Azerbaijan of course, but official spelling is not a reason to overlook common name guidance, and those that currently hold Agdam will also not be rendering its name using the Azerbaijani alphabet. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning oppose. No sources provided for the proposed title and, especially important, no English-language sources provided. Jenks24 (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
I have just modified 7 external links on Agdam. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified one external link on Agdam. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 4 external links on Agdam. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified one external link on Agdam. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified one external link on Agdam. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
The introduction is far too long and the entire mention of a "Hiroshima of the Caucasus" is just ridiculous and unobjective. The entire article is constantly being rewritten by users such as Grandmaster, Creffel, and the thankfully banned CuriousGolden, to garner sympathy for the Azerbaijani side. "Occupation" and "self-proclaimed" are simply not objective. Refrain from doing these things over and over and over again. 80.121.97.28 (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Introduction is just a few lines. It is certainly not long. There's a consensus in Wikipedia to call the occupied territories what they are, i.e. occupied. It applies not just to this region, but also to the Middle East, for example. Search for the word "occupied" and see what you find. Just because you don't like or disagree with something does not mean that it should not be included in the article. Hiroshima of Caucasus is what Agdam is known as. It is all sourced information. And please mind WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Making personal comments about other editors is not acceptable. Grandmaster17:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Hiroshima of Caucasus is what Agdam is known as". Clearly not, but that's what the government of Azerbaijan and Azerbaijani troll farms are trying to do. There is no place for propaganda here. 78.115.155.136 (talk) 08:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The parallel to Hiroshima provided in a handful of Azeri/Turkish/pro-Azeri/pro-Turkish sources attributes the parallel to De Waals and George Mitchell [1], however
But instead my eyes were drawn to what was a small Hiroshima lying below. Aghdam used to have fifty thou-sand inhabitants. Now it is completely empty.
2) Journalist George Mitchell, in his "Frozen War We Forgot" 2020 says "Agdam is "seen as Caucasian Hiroshima" without citing his source, and his original visit being in 2014-2015 he apparently reflects Waal's phrase, rather than coining it.
The "Hiroshima of the South Caucasus" as one US diplomat called it
4) The US diplomat implied by him - Carey Cavanagh (then US Ambassador/Special Negotiator responsible for conflicts in Eurasia and concurrently U.S. Co-Chair of the OSCEMinsk Group), tweets denying he used "Hiroshima of Caucasus", by saying:
"Who called it "The Hiroshima of the South Caucasus?" In 2001, I declared 'It was turned into the largest Home Depot on the planet because local authorities had allowed all the buildings to be stripped clean for building supplies". and cites the NYT article, which says: "Little does she know that she has lost Aghdam, too. After some 50,000 Azeris like Ms. Huseneva fled nearly a decade ago, the wave of looting that followed stripped this city to its foundations. Today, Aghdam lies in spectacular ruin, a weed-infested rubble of contorted metal and toppled walls. The graffiti-covered central mosque has been taken over by about three dozen cows. Not a single building stands intact. ''It was turned 'into the largest Home Depot on the planet,'' said Carey Cavanaugh, an American special negotiator in the conflict, as he wheeled his minivan into Aghdam.
5) Waal then tweets replying to Cavannagh by saying "Hiroshima of the Caucasus was from me actually!" adding that "I may even have uttered that phrase, standing on the top of the mosque with you as you took those pictures, Onnik..."
It is apparent that this parallel coined by a single journalist in 2013, and Chinese-whispered by a handful of articles which are not even able to attribute the phrase properly, fails consensus for WP:EXCEPTIONAL rule and its citation in Agdam and related articles without attribution, simply using "sometimes referred" or "often referred" fails WP:NOTSCANDAL. It appears it is given undue weight in those wiki articles to advance official Azerbaijan's views of Azerbaijan being the victim in the conflict (Azerbaijani president Aliyev is famous for advancing this view: "Foreign journalists called Aghdam “Hiroshima of Caucasus”), breaching WP:ADVOCACY rule. I therefore suggest either OPTION 1) not using it at all or OPTION 2) using it with strict attribution to Waal, not in the lede, not giving undue weight, not citing articles that just re-cite the phrase, and in no other articles other than Agdam itself - the subject of the phrase. Best wishes. --Armatura (talk) 23:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with version 1 - Japanese City which was not a scene of battle, ruined by atomic bomb on civilian population is entirely undue in case of Agdam which was damaged in the course of battle and without using mass destruction weapon and destruction being the side effect of battle and neglect rather than intentional wiping from the earth as the term implies. Yellow journalistic terms claimed to be invented by De Waal have no place in an encyclopedic article, plus it's lack of relevance doesn't make it reasonable to include in the article. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 00:35, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is fine the way it is. We can see that in addition to de Waal, the parallel with Hiroshima is used by mainstream Western media. Euronews, France24, AP, and even Armenian reporter for IWPR. Since it is a popular reference to the present condition of the town, it should be reflected in the article. Grandmaster10:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Version 1 : per Armatura's reasoning, I also suggest including a supplementary vote on whether we should educate people making and accepting such comments about what really happened to Hiroshima in detail and that none of it applies here. We shouldn't encourage lazy journalist sensationalism. - Kevo327 (talk)
I think proper RFC on this is needed, so that the entire Wikipedia community could vote on this. It is not decided by the number of votes, but by the strength of arguments, therefore it should be listed at the relevant board and eventually closed by an uninvolved user, as per rules. Grandmaster16:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you search "Hiroshima of the Caucasus" with quotation marks on google you will find sources ending in .az and .tr rather than the Western sources that this article presents. : (https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q="Hiroshima+of+the+Caucasus"&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8)
Therefore I wrote a fitting ending to the introduction which included Turkish and Azeri state media echoing the name:
Grandmaster then removed all of this and called it "POV edits" : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agdam&oldid=1061977162. He then claimed that it was about "enough sources", not displaying an array of sources (i.e. Western but also Turkic govt sources.)
It is certainly noteworthy that the phrase is being used as a political chip. Include as many citations as you want that support this political hijacking of the phrase. The original source itself is not noteworthy and ought not be given undue prominence. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
not original research. If you actually read my version instead of reverting it as "POV", you would know that I present the Azeri side just as you do the Western side.--217.149.166.11 (talk) 10:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not necessary for editors to label it as propaganda. That need only be mentioned here in the talk page. In the article itself, the sources may be grouped and their provenance stated; readers are then free to come to their own conclusions. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly my opinion. I dont know why the editor was talking about propaganda portrayal since i only wanted to include the sources - it is up to the reader what to think of it. but as i said, the first thing that comes up is az and tr sites, so they should be mentioned too!--217.149.166.11 (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The devastation inflicted on Azeri towns during the 27 years under Armenian control will be hard to undo. The Armenian separatists who ran Nagorno-Karabakh used the districts once occupied by Azeris as a buffer zone and a future bargaining chip, making many of them uninhabitable. Buildings were bulldozed. Looters took anything the former residents had left behind. .... says Hikmet Hajiyev, an aide of Azerbaijan’s president.
over the last three decades, other structures had been systematically demolished, looted, and stripped bare.
These two sources are not reliable, as one simply cites a Azerbaijani government official, and the second one cites no evidence but is an opinion piece by a photographer with apparent conflict of interest who is appears very comfortable with one-sided "Armenians are the aggressors and Azeris/Turks are the victims" view of the story popular only in Azerbaijan and Turkey. I therefore removed the sentence in the lede about looting that was based on these two sources.
A month earlier, on June 28, 1993, Karabakh Armenian forces captured Mardakert, the last Azeri-held stronghold in Nagorno-Karabakh. Before the war, the mostly Armenian populated city was Karabakh's second largest. Reflecting the tit-for-tat nature of the conflict, in Agdam Armenian forces took revenge for the Azeri destruction of Mardakert. Thomas Goltz, who was in Mardakert in September 1992 while the city was still under Azeri control, made the following observation: "The city of Mardakert...is now a pile of rubble. After the burned houses and smashed vehicles, the eye is drawn to the more intimate detritus of destroyed private lives: pots and pans, suitcases leaking sullied clothes, crushed baby strollers and even family portraits, still in shattered frames." In TCG-33, Institute of Current World Affairs, Hanover, New Hampshire, September 18, 1992.
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Although three options were offered in this RfC, it appears that participants were either in favor of complete removal or leaving exactly as is, with very few even mentioning the middle-term of moving to a less prominent section of the article and/or adding attribution.
Some of those in favor of removing the comparison to Hiroshima appealed to the fact several sources using it are biased or of low quality, and the parallel has been used as sensationalist propaganda, and so should not be included in the article. A rebuttal was offered by showing that various reliable sources also use it. In addition, the one who appears responsible for coining the term is a Western journalist known for covering conflicts in the area. Although there might be some truth behind claims of propaganda, it's also true that independent, reliable sources use the term.
Much more relevant was the discussion on whether it is WP:DUE or not. Participants say the claim is WP:EXCEPTIONAL and since there is a lack of "multiple high-quality sources", its inclusion is WP:UNDUE. There is no exact metric given as to how many they mean, though some were given by participants in favor of keeping the phrase, showing it's used to a decent extent.
My reading of the discussion is that there is a lack of consensus on whether the term should remain or be removed. Both sides make compelling arguments, some based on policy and guidelines, some not, but that's normal. This means the status quo prevails. Having said that, interested parties should consider further discussion to see if this claim should be moved to the body and attribution given, as some consensus seems to be emerging there. (non-admin closure) Isabelle🔔20:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
limited use - only in the body, only in this article, with only one-two references attributing it to De Waal
continue using it as it is now, including in the lede of this article, and in other articles - "The city has sometimes been referred as the Hiroshima of the Caucasus".
Do not use the comparison in any way. I agree with this option as the creator of this RfC. The sensationalist allusion to atomic bombing of Hiroshima was coined by a single journalist who is currently bragging about coining it on Twitter, misattributed to a dipomat who denies saying it, and nonetheless promoted by non-free media of Azerbaijan and Turkey and replicated by a handful of other sources without proper attribution by those very sources, further replicated in this article without any attribution. See discussion above for full details. We cannot really say that Agdam is “Hiroshima of Caucasus” in Wikivoice, and weakening “sometimes has been referred to as” doesn’t really save the situation. Reference in France24 or AP doesn’t either, as the quotation of that pretentious nickname in the sources is problematic as well, as demonstrated above. --Armatura (talk) 11:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do not use the comparison in any way. At all, ever. As propaganda of recent coinage, with no utility in describing the magnitude of death, injury, or destruction at Agdam. Just because comparison has been used [by whom?] does not make it notable or encyclopedic. Even including the comparison in Wikipedia is to push a point of view. Many cities have been raised in conflicts—most of urban Japan by the U.S. Army Air Force in the last year of WW II, for example. Other than Nakasaki, perhaps only Dresden can be a valid comparison to Hiroshima. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 03:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do not use the comparison in any way - I'll add what I said above. A Japanese city which was not a scene of battle, ruined by atomic bomb on civilian population is entirely undue in case of Agdam, which was damaged in the course of battle and without using mass destruction weapon and destruction being the side effect of battle and neglect rather than intentional wiping from the earth as the term implies. Yellow journalistic terms claimed to be invented by De Waal have no place in an encyclopedic article. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 04:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Continue using. It is a verifiable information, and is used by the mainstream media such as Euronews, France24, AP, The independent, and even Armenian reporter for IWPR. In addition, it is used by Thomas de Waal in his book Black Garden, which is considered the best research on the history of the conflict, and many other publications. I don't think that the media around the world would engage in propaganda, it is just a commonly accepted alternative name of the city. Grandmaster09:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A handful of random sources, which do not always know whom they are quoting, including a few western ones likely bought by caviar diplomacy does not make it mainstream or popular. Non-free Azerbaijani mass media has an extremely low threshold on promoting sensational comparisons positioning Azerbaijan as victim to Armenian aggression, a view supported essentially only by non-free Turkish mass media. Here, Azeri Minister of Economy provides parallels between cities in Karabakh and "Stalingrad, Sarajevo and Hiroshima" . Karabakh.Center where he was making a speech, promotes "Agdam, Shusha, Fuzuli alongside Sarajevo, Stalingrad and Aleppo" narrative, citing Head of the Foreign Policy Department of the Azerbaijani Presidential Administration, Hikmet Hajiyev, who labelled Tartar as "the Stalingrad of Azerbaijan against ARMENIAN NAZISM" , for URBICIDE"... Wikipedia is not a place for national advocacy, neither it is a platform for promoting sensationalists views. --Armatura (talk) 10:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please provide evidence for any major western news outlet using the term being bought by "caviar diplomacy" in order to do so? The reference is maid to the mainstream western media, not Azerbaijani ones. Grandmaster11:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lazy and yellow journalistic undue comparison invented by De Waal isn't a place on an encyclopedia. A couple outlets picking it up doesn't mean it should be added either. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, where is the evidence that the term is being used by major international media in exchange for a bribe or something? Personal assumptions cannot be a replacement for reliable sources. Grandmaster14:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some suggestions for proponents of "continual usage": WP:NPOV (“representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views”), WP:WIKIVOICE (“Avoid stating opinions and seriously contended assertions as facts”).
Giving the nickname that much weight violates neutrality. Please see the piece where a British journalist Russell Pollard criticized the term. The phrase contributes no objective knowledge and only serves propaganda purposes. Agdam has nothing in common with Hiroshima. Agdam wasn’t hit with an atomic bomb or radiation weapon. In fact, the Azeris were firing rockets at Stepanakert from Agdam. Agdam wasn’t a civilian town, it was a military base and legitimate military target.
Just ~4 non-Azeri sources are not enough weight, it would need far greater weight to be in the lead. (WP:NPOV: “If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia”). Also note that some of these sources claim the name was given by locals; this is false, it was invented by De Waal. Thus, those sources cannot be considered reliable. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The term is used by a lot more that just 4. Those 4 are just the most notable. I removed some that were in other languages. And Russell Pollard is some guy who runs a propaganda website artsakh.org.uk. Agdam was the biggest city in the entire region, and civilian buildings are not legitimate targets. The city was not destroyed in fighting, it was leveled to the ground on purpose after the capture, as evidenced by Minsk Group diplomats and HRW. It looks now like a hand made Hiroshima, which is why journalists around the world use the term Hiroshima of Caucasus. Grandmaster17:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While that the comparison has been used is verifiable, that the comparison is meaningful has not been. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were each destroyed in a second, Dresden in a night, Agdam in, what, decades? Wikipedia is an organized collection of knowledge, based on reliable sources. Media-around-the-world can be lazy and contain propaganda. When a source does, that source is unreliable on that aspect of that event. Weak metaphors make for unreliable articles. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 08:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not claim that Agdam was destroyed the same way as Hiroshima, or something to that effect. It only says that it is often referred to as Hiroshima of Caucasus, which is a verifiable info. I don't see that any of the Western mainstream media are engaged in propaganda on Azerbaijani side, in particular an outlet like France24, which has always tended to be pro-Armenian, as the French media in general. Yet the term is used even in France, as we can see. Grandmaster09:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not using it in any way and keeping it in the "that was an awful idea" jar : per Armatura's reasoning in the previous discussion, I also suggest including a supplementary vote on whether we should educate people making and accepting such comments about what really happened to Hiroshima in detail and that none of it applies here. We shouldn't encourage lazy journalist sensationalism, (Yes i just copied what I wrote above) it's an extremely stupid invalid comparison when you get do your research and actually compare the two cities together. - Kevo327 (talk) 11:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Continue using - the article only says that some commentary refers to it as such. Clearly it's not an accurate comparison to Hiroshima, however the article isn't saying that, it just says that some commentary (for whatever reasons) refers to it in that way. The RS linked in the article is quite clear that it *is* in fact referred to as such. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do not use the comparison in any way. It is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, and as it is not used by "multiple high-quality sources", it would be undue to include it - in particular, I would expect wide usage from multiple mainstream news sources, which we do not have - I note that most, possibly all, of the reliable sources who refer to the term quote others using it, rather than using it themselves as the unreliable sources do, which strongly supports the notion that its inclusion would be undue. BilledMammal (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do not use the comparison in any way. It is not even discussed in the body of the article, per MOS:LEDE new information should not be introduced in the lede especially with citation overkill to create puffery on its importance. No in-depth comparison between Hiroshima and Agdam has been made in any of the sources, a passing mention to a phrase coined by a single journalist is not notable enough for the lede. For this reason, it also fails WP:EXCEPTIONAL as explained extensively by other editors above and should not be used at all. TagaworShah(talk)16:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Continue using. Thomas de Waal is by far the most renowned Western expert on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and one of the few to have addressed the issue of Agdam's physical destruction. If he coined the term "Hiroshima of the Caucasus", it is hardly "exceptional", and if, in addition, the term was later republished by sources such as France24, Euronews and The Indepedent, it only speaks in favour of its importance. No one attributed the term to Cavanaugh; it is clear from Cavanaugh's tweet that he was merely inquiring as to the content of Onnik Krikorian's tweet about Agdam, which did not provide any attribution. Parishan (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Continue using, but move the mention to the body. Of those standing opposed to this content, many are presenting arguments that have no basis in policy or guideline. The sources provided are impeccable (except maybe Euronews), and I urge the closer to heavily discount !votes that depend on baseless description of them as 'propaganda' or 'yellow journalism'. Surely, such descriptions could not accurately be applied to the Associated Press, or Agence-France Press? In addition to the five sources presented in the article, I'd add The Times which says in this article that Agdam was "so devastated by Armenian pillagers that it’s sometimes called the 'Hiroshima of the Caucasus'".
The current version of the article includes the claim in the lead but not in the body. Though I advocate for ongoing inclusion, I'd prefer to follow WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY and place the content lower in the article, somewhere in the History section. But, if it's down to lead or nowhere, I'd prefer lead. Firefangledfeathers20:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comment By the way, "Hiroshima" is not unique to Agdam, we can see how Azerbaijani propaganda machine is using the "Hiroshima" analogy trick toward other Azeri cities damaged in 2020 NK war. Aliyev's chief propagandist Hikmet Hajiyev, who shamelessly lies in front of BBC camera that "Armenians never ever lived in Jabrayil", instead of answering the question why Azerbaijan destroyed the Armenian church switches to "eight of our cities were destroyed by Armenians, it's like Hiroshima", watch the video from 12:15 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lsq8db5-8I. So much for truth, due weight and value for Wikipedia... --Armatura (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is because every settlement in 7 districts that were under Armenian occupation looks like Hiroshima. It is enough to check the photo and video footage of those areas. What is propaganda here? And the term is used not just by Hajiyev, it was coined by Western journalists and is used by the mainstream international media. Btw, that BBC report shows the town of Jabrayil that looks like another, smaller Hiroshima after the Armenian occupation. But Agdam is the biggest city of the region, which is why it is often compared to Hiroshima by the journalists. Grandmaster17:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence an audience and further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented. Propaganda can be found in news and journalism, government, advertising, entertainment, education, and activism and is often associated with material which is prepared by governments as part of war efforts, political campaigns, revolutionaries, big businesses, ultra-religious organizations, the media, and certain individuals such as soapboxers."
I don't see how the above definition it is applicable to this situation, unless you can prove that Euronews, France24, AP and many other mainstream Western media are engaged in the propaganda in Azerbaijan's favor. Grandmaster19:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I am saying - Wikipedia:Competence requires basic ability to differentiate the dry from the wet. The ONUS is on you to prove that a loaded sensationalist comparison mechanically duplicated by a few sources without any jurnalistic etiquette whatsoever has any value for Wikipedia. If one can't / won't see the propaganda, then retiring from extremely vigilance-requiring and sensitive AA topic and editing less controversial topics where there is less propaganda, may not be a bad idea. --Armatura (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I don't see how this term is propaganda. If it is a popular reference to this city, then there is nothing wrong with informing the reader about that. And accusing all the major Western media of lacking journalistic etiquette is a bit too much. Grandmaster19:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And btw, even Armenian media makes analogies with nuclear weapons. This is an article by an Armenian journalist, titled "Did our people use a hydrogen bomb in Aghdam and Zangelan?" [2] I'm sure you will not accuse Armenian media of propaganda in favor of Azerbaijan. Grandmaster19:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After seeing you are citing『Ruben Vardazaryan из Фейсбука』(some random guy's Facebook post about unheard "hydrogen bomb") as "even Armenian media supporting your point of view", I now have serious concerns about your methods and ability of choosing sources. I will think of opening a discussion about your apparent inability to source and edit neutrally, Grandmaster. Maybe take a day or two off to cool down, to avoid a drama board. --Armatura (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has a policy for editors who just won't listen and keep beating a dead horse (read - make a mess) no matter what, it is called WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. "Ruben Vardazaryan from Facebook" is nobody, epress.am has no or unknown editorial oversight and is full of utterly crazy stuff including curses and taboo words, "hydrogen bomb" is a fringe theory that goes beyond even the wildest fantasies of even Azerbaijani media, and anybody who'd keep promoting a WP:FRINGE theory here will unavoidably raise a serious question - whether that editor should be allowed to edit this sensitive topic further. Please do not test the patience of other editors with nonsense, it may be viewed as trolling. --Armatura (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What fringe theory do I promote? I do not propose to use this source in the article, the purpose is to demonstrate the usage of the term in mass media. The author of this Armenian publication compares present condition of Agdam with the aftermath of a nuclear attack. The same do media outlets all over the world. Anyway, this discussion is not going anywhere, let's stop it at that. Grandmaster21:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
so, Grandmaster, you don’t like when the talk discussion is forming a consensus against your point of view and ask for RfC. And when I do what you ask for and a consensus is RfC is forming against your point of view again, you’re trying to make it look like technically wrong? The user you’re citing put himself in awkward position in ANI by trying to boomerang something nobody else supported, so much for the knowledge of guidelines... My question, the way it is visible in RfC boards, is indeed formulated as simple, brief and NPOV statement, go have a look, and seek ways for winning a dispute better than denigrating RfC. --Armatura (talk) 09:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not take it to a personal level again. At the very least you need to edit your statement and formulate the question neutrally for future contributors. Grandmaster10:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if that is your concern, I gathered my own opinions in one place, to make the separation from the brief neutral RfC statement (which remains unchanged) visually obvious. Hope this addresses your concerns. --Armatura (talk) 10:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kheo17 Hello, regarding your recent edit removing the Artsakh templates and links, are you certain the NKR no longer claims the city of Agdam (known to them as Akna)? These sources [3][4][5] indicate the NKR's desire to affirm the status of the territories lost in 2020 as "occupied". -𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘00:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agdam was ceded back to Azerbaijan by the NKR and the Republic of Armenia government after the war as a result of the ceasefire agreement. Since then, no Armenian officials mentioned return of territories other than Shusha and Hadrut which were part of the former NKAO of the Azerbaijan SSR. Even before the war, all Armenian officials referring to the territories surrounding former NKAO as "controlled territory" for safety cushion. KHE'O (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Despite Agdam being ceded/surrendered, Artsakh/NKR was not a legal party to the November ceasefire agreement, therefore, their compliance with the agreement or their omission of which specific territories lost in 2020 they considered occupied cannot be interpreted as a forfeiture of the surrounding districts (SD). The official website of the President of the NKR even includes the SD in the administrative map of the de-facto republic, and includes them as "Regions of the Republic", namely "Kashatagh" and "Shahoumyan", as well as parts of eastern Askeran and Martouni and southern Hadrut. In conclusion, I cannot see how these districts and cities (including Agdam) are not considered by Artsakh/NKR as "occupied" by Azerbaijan, hence, in my view there are no grounds to remove the Artsakh template on this page, nor in any other city that was captured by Azerbaijan from the NKR in 2020. -𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘00:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The NKR was not a legal party to the ceasefire agreement, but the prime Minister of Armenia publicly mentioned that the decision was made in an agreement with the separatist government. In your words, if I find any map showing Zangezur (Syunik province of Armenia) as part of Azerbaijan in one of the official pages of the Republic of Azerbaijan, this gives me ground to include Azerbaijani templates and links in the Zangezur related articles?KHE'O (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So if tomorrow a claim is pressed to include Baku into the NKR, those templates should be added to the article Baku as well? There needs to be a line drawn at some point to include what was claimed when the NKR was established and what was not originally claimed but remained under its de facto control until 2020. If we take note of all the later claims which are not reflected anywhere beyond the paper they are printed on, we are risking to get ourselves lost in confusing and unnecessary overlaps. There is a whole bunch of secessionist entities that issue manifests and lay all sorts of exorbitant territorial claims but what does that change for Wikipedia? Parishan (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agdam lies in the vicinity of Tigranakert of Artsakh, an ancient Armenian city dating to the 2nd–1st centuries B.C.[17]
Can anyone explain to me how the above statement related to the early history of the Agdam, and to the article? Reading the article it feels like an unrelated statement injected into the article. This statement definitely does not belong to the Early History paragraphs. --Abrvagl (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Spamming "JDLI" doesn't make any contribution to the discussion, is it biased? Anyways. Does not matter how old Tigranakert is and if it is major history or not. This has no relation neither to Agdam city nor to the early history of the Agdam city. There are a lot of major historical facts, should we list all of them in the early history section of the Agdam city article? --Abrvagl (talk) 11:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the place called Tigranakers is located near Agdam city. However, Tigranakert, as "major historical fact", has no relation to the early history of the Agdam(actually to any history of Agdam). The only thing that we can do is reflect Tigranakert in the See Also section of the article. --Abrvagl (talk) 12:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a source for Agdam being within the ancient Tigranakert, and you haven't provided any sources suggesting otherwise. I can't find anything about 'Tigranakers', maybe you should provide a source with your claim? And it (single supposed place) definitely isn't "alot" even if it exists/existed. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, no source is required to claim that statement about Tigranakert "Agdam lies in the vicinity of Tigranakert of Artsakh, an ancient Armenian city dating to the 2nd–1st centuries B.C.[17]" has nothing to do with the early history of the Agdam city, which was founded in the 19th century. It is just common sense. Secondly, there is not a single word about the Agdam in the source, it is just a map where the approximate location of the Tigranakert is shown.--Abrvagl (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's like the modern city of [[Corinth] and the ancient Greek / Roman city of Corinth which was in the general vicinity. It would be strange of the current city not to mention its near neighbour. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would agree with you, but it is not like that at all. In the Corinth article, It is logical to mention Ancient Corinth because modern Corinth is successor of the the ancient Corinth. They have historical ties and logically connected. Whereas Agdam and Tigranakert are unrelated. Tigkanakert just located near the Agdam and has no relation nor to the early history of Agdam, neither to Agdam city itself. The only suitable place for Tigranakert mention would be See Also section. --~~~~ Abrvagl (talk) 06:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It might not be true that they are unrelated. The founders of the modern city may have been as aware of the strategic importance of the site as the original founders. Or maybe they wished to impose their technical superiority on the newly conquered region. Or maybe they wished to erase the cultural memory on the newly subjected populace. I've heard that conquerers like to do that, even down to the present time. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe yes or may be not, but so far there is no proves of that may be. Do not get me wrong, if there would be facts that Agdam is successor of Tigranakert, or any other relevant historical relation - I would personally add that to the article and defend it. However, currently there no such facts, and we can not build articles based on the "may be"s, gossips and assumptions. --~~~~ Abrvagl (talk) 09:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My friend, "humans lived nearby" is not an argument. Humans lived in many places around the Agdam city. You need to show how Tigranakert actually related to the early history of the Agdam. I far as I am concerned - there are no relation at all. I personally could not find any WP:RS making that connection. Thanks. Abrvagl (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You should really stop telling good faith editors what is and is not an argument, especially when you have 5 editors in opposition to you. You raised this non issue in NPOV desk of all places where you also received opposition. Hear this out though: telling others "this is not an argument" is not an argument itself and is pretty condescending, refusing to WP:DROP the stick and bringing this month-old issue to an irrelevant noticeboard isn't productive. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Agdam → Aghdam – Correcting wrong anglicization of the Azerbaijani name of『Ağdam』(The Azeri ğ becomes gh in English). "Aghdam" spelling is also the common name according to Google search:
Comment How do we know that the figures given above actually refer to the city that the requester wants moved? It could easily be people looking for any of the 5 places with that name. Dr. Vogel (talk) 09:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DrVogel: I've added "Azerbaijan" to avoid the results for the 2nd most famous article with the name "Aghdam" which is Nasim Najafi Aghdam. Aside from that, the city is the primary topic for the name Agdam/Aghdam, which is why this article is simply called Agdam and not "Agdam (city)". — Goldencall me maybe?09:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AjaxSmack: Sure, but Ağdam isn't the common name used in English-language media as specified by WP:COMMONNAME. Google News Search returns only 1,690 results for Ağdam while Google Scholar returns 456, both of which are significantly lower than the results for Aghdam. — Goldencall me maybe?09:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a policy I'm not aware of? If that's the case, please do let me know about it. But as far as I know, WP:DIACRITICS states: "The policy on using common names and on foreign names does not prohibit the use of modified letters, if they are used in the common name as verified by reliable sources." In this case, as demonstrated above, the majority of reliable sources prefer the anglicised version without diacritics. — Goldencall me maybe?15:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Part of WP:RSisWP:RSCONTEXT ("The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made..."). To paraphrase User:In ictu oculi, sources that might be reliable about facts or history might not be reliable for spelling foreign names. If a source has a manual of style which says blanket "no diacritics", it is not a reliable source on how to spell say『François Mitterrand』or "Recep Tayyip Erdoğan". — AjaxSmack04:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support the corrected Anglicisation. Wiki has no problem with many scripts and diacritics. But that's not the issue — this is the Eng Wiki, so Latin letters please. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It should not be necessary for people to have to explain to native English speakers how to recognise, let alone pronounce, strange near-Latin letters. This is the Eng-Wiki; Anglicisation is necessary to make such letters intelligible. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Letters with diacritics should not and do not need explaining. Diacritics generally are "read through". i.e. ignored, by those unfamiliar with them (hence no problems recognising Mötley Crüe). I would fathom that both Aghdam and Ağdam would be pronounced "Agdam" (ægdæm/ɑːgdɑːm) to the uninitiated. (And to such readers, neither "gh" nor『ğ』gives an immediate clue to the Azeri pronunciation. If anything, "gh" could be more misleading if it leads to "Afdam" by analogy with "laugh".) On the other hand, using the correct spelling does provide vital information for readers who do know their meaning. In short, diacritics provide important information without inconveniencing readers (e.g. with Recep Tayyip Erdoğan). — AjaxSmack16:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support; ngrams suggests that this is the common name. Oppose proposal to move to Ağdam, as WP:DIACRITICS tells us that we are forbidden from using them unless they used in the common name, and it is clear they are not used here. BilledMammal (talk) 04:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the 
