Talk:Agdam Mosque

Need for neutral sources
With one exception this article is only based on sources from Azerbaijan. These sources are not neutral and the information they provide is often not completely accurate. I think we should try to replace or combine these sources with neutral ones. Lets starting from the lead of the article: based on Azerbaijani sources it asserts that the mosque was partly destroyed during the war, however according to RFERL the mosque wasn't destroyed. -- va c  io  19:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You can see a pictures taken from inside the mosque in this link. Or maybe you will require the photographers to be neutral too? --Verman1 (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I won't. But the problem is, it does not appear from the photographs that the mosque is used as a cowshed. Even Andrei Galafyev. the photographer seems to say that the entrance of cattle to the mosque is rather accidental. Please read his quotation. -- va c  io  20:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you really think that so many cattle entered inside the mosque just "accidentally"? For what? Your statement is just ridiculous. Photographer didn't mean it was by accident. --Verman1 (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not up to us to decide whether it was accidentally or not, although there are no drinking troughs, mangers or other utensils one expects to see in a stable. Also if it wasn't just accidentally, the photographer would surely mention that, don't you think? -- va c  io  17:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure the photographer would mention that, but at least we have photos as proof that mosque is being used as a cowshed (at least for the time photos being taken). Unfortunately, photographer wasn't a specialist in how stables should be designed, that's why he didn't take photo of every corner inside for detailed illustration. It is not rationale to require utensils and other cowshed staff to be shown in the photos if we see everything very clearly how mosque being used. About your last edit, in the second sentence of the article it says that "It was one of the few buildings of the town that wasn't destroyed during the Nagorno-Karabakh war". And in the last sentence you add "They also announced that the mosque has been refurbished." Don't you think that there is something wrong with these? If mosque stayed intact, for what reason it was refurbished? Just for propaganda? --Verman1 (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Does refurbish necessarily mean that the building has been destroyed? -- va c  io  18:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the article doesn't even mention what has been refurbished. It only says that authorities are planning to restore mosque in the next (2011) year, but there is no confirmation that such works have been carried out. The information you added is completely different than in the source and misleads the reader. --Verman1 (talk) 19:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Which article do you mean? The one from News.am or the one from RFERL? Here Is what they say:


 * News.am: Shahverdyan stressed the mosques in Shushi and Akna [=Agdam] and their surroundings were cleaned from rubble and fenced.
 * RFERL: Karabakh authorities said the mosque in Agdam [...] has also been refurbished.
 * Bot statements are in past tense. Can you explain what is misleading the way I used this information? -- va c  io  19:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there any neutral source confirming your words? Any pictures at least. --Verman1 (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I quoted already two sources, what does make you believe they are not neutral? And please explain why you moved information based on this sources. -- va c  io  08:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You deleted well sourced third party source and inserted a misleading, unproved information into article. Your sources include just quotes, they don't show any proofs for your claims. If you want to add something to the article, you are more than welcome, but please do not delete well sourced material and do not make edits that can mislead the reader. --Verman1 (talk) 10:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Verman1, I try to understand what you call 'misleading, unproved information'. Maybe we should see whether we agree about what the sources say? We have 4 sources about the current state of the mosque:
 * an article from today.az dd 22 June 2010
 * an article from news.az dd 17 July 2010
 * an article from news.am dd 17 November 2010
 * an article from rferl.org dd 18 November 2010
 * These sources provide the following statements or claims:
 * Today.az: A photographer visited the mosque at Sept. 7, 2007
 * Today.az: The photographer reported that: The floor in the mosque is entirely dirtied with manure of cattle, which wanders on the ruins of Agdam in daytime
 * News.az: In 2010 a Turkish organization complained to the Pope that the mosque is being used as a cowshed
 * News.az: Armenians have turned a mosque in Azerbaijan’s Agdam town into a pigpen and cowshed
 * News.am: The govenment of NK announced that the mosque of Agdam and its surrounding were cleaned from rubble and fenced.
 * News.am: This work was funded by the government of NK.
 * RFERL: Karabakh authorities said the mosque in Agdam [...] has also been refurbished.
 * Now, please explain with which of these statements you agree or disagree. And please be specific. -- va c  io  19:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Can user NovaSkola explain, why he removed information based on RFERL and News.am? -- va c  io  17:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Why are Azerbaijani users so eager to remove the information about the clean up of the Mosque? --George Spurlin (talk) 02:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no need emphasize the nationality of editors in here. It regards to the nationality of sources also. I need to put my question again. Is there any evidence or proof, supporting fact that mosque has been refurbished or not being used as cowshed? I agree with the fact that Karabakh authorities claimed that mosque has been refurbished, if you want to add their quotes or declarations to the article, it is OK. But there is no need to delete obvious fact that mosque is used as cowshed, we have strong source to confirm this, and I see no evidence or claim denying this fact. If you have one, please provide them. --Verman1 (talk) 12:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Verman1, wikipedians are not journalists, we do not confirm or provide evidence to support the information we add in an article. What we do, is to look for reliable sources and use a reference to them allowing the reader to decide whether to trust or not to believe this sources. I am glad that you agree to add the mention that Karabakh authorities announced that the mosque has been cleaned and refurbished. Indeed its all we can do in this case since there are only 3 things we can be sure about: (1) photographs were published showing cattle inside the mosque, (2) Some sources claiming that it was used as cowshed (based on this photographs), (3) Some sources claiming that the mosque was cleaned and recovered. -- va c  io  17:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm glad we agree Verman1, information about clean up will stay, and be attributed to NKR officials. This way, Azerbaijanis get to say mosque is being used as a cow shed, and Armenians get to say they clean it up. Until more reliable sources are found to prove or disprove either claim. --George Spurlin (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Verman1, I waited for weeks on your reaction here. If you think something is misleading, you should explain it here. Please don't start again edit warring, I have warned you for this several times now. -- va c  io  18:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Also please explain how you are sure that the mosque is Today (i.e. ) still used as a cowshed, when the source that makes such a claim is published July 17, 2010. -- va c  io  18:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I support statement by George Spurlin: "Azerbaijanis get to say mosque is being used as a cow shed, and Armenians get to say they clean it up. Until more reliable sources are found to prove or disprove either claim." Both sides get what they need, if you want to add more info than this, you need to provide sources. But I see none. --Verman1 (talk) 17:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I have provided sources, please don't pretend you are not aware that the discussion before the comment of George Spurlin. -- va c  io  09:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is the summary of my last edit that was reverted by Verman1. Since it was based on on the arguments and discussion here, I think it should be restored as a consensus version. So if anyone has remarks about any of the following points, please mention them.
 * First I added information where certain information comes from. Since it is a very sensitive issue, I think it is often important to do so;
 * I mentioned about Andrei Galafyev, who visited the mosque;
 * A quote from his narrative statement;
 * About his photographs;
 * I removed the statement today the mosque us used... for the reason already mentioned above;
 * Added NPOV sentence: the criticism of Azerbaijani side that the mosque was used as a cowshed. -- va c  io  12:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Neutral voice and some photo evidence.
Hello guys.

After reading your heated discussion here and seeing amount of nonsense reverse edits done to this article, I decided to add my voice and some eye-witness evidence here. I'm a European Union citizen, not Armenian or Azeri and also no Christian and no Muslim, so I guess I can be really neutral on this issue. I visited ruins of Agdam less than 10 days ago (on the 06.06.2013), and I saw this mosque.

My observations after the visit there:

1. The city is virtually destroyed, I think this mosque is the only intact building still left standing.

2. Apart from building plaster and paint flaking from the walls plus some light graffiti on them, building looks completely undamaged.

3. Both minarets towers are still standing and there are no visible holes in the walls.

4. The roof of the mosque have NOT been pulled down for sure - its still complete and intact. But if there was ever any attic - its gone now.

5. Outside of the main entrance to the building there is the information plate of NKR in Armenian and English, saying:

"Historical & cultural monument

Persian Mosque (1868-1870)

Protected by State"

6. Original doors to the mosque are gone, but all of the entrances have new fence gates, closed with locks.

7. There is indeed some cattle grazing near the mosque, obviously using the shadow of the building as the protection from the strong sun. It cannot enter the mosque because of the fence gates.

8. I haven't seen any pigs near the mosque or anywhere in the ruins of the city.

9. Inside of the mosque is free of cow manure - if there was any, it was entirely cleaned. There are only some stones on the floor.

And here is some photo evidence to support my words:

http://imageshack.us/a/img837/2843/5609.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img442/4315/uod1.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img705/4585/4alp.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img542/2633/jilf.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img515/7882/w8du.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img812/1993/kzc0.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img189/9928/e6m2.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img268/1364/udr6.jpg

All photos in one RAR archive:

Agdam mosque 06.06.2013.rar (9.9 MB)

https://mega.co.nz/#!tcZAFZ5K!PHH7f1Ayk_CoZFF8XtassjxsP9kSfiMb4LlksQxQbM4

I hope this will help.

All the best, Interfides (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Agdam Mosque. 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/20100720025140/http://www.news.az/articles/19325 to http://www.news.az/articles/19325

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) 22:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content
why did you remove this? Sourced to Gamaghelyan, Philip; Rumyantsev, Sergey (2021). "The road to the Second Karabakh War: the role of ethno-centric narratives in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict". Caucasus Survey. 9 (3) - LouisAragon (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * “A narrative of "barbarous Armenians who turn mosques into pigsties" would become an important component of mobilization in Azerbaijan in the prelude to the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war”


 * I got access to the source with Resource Exchange and in no part of it does it mention the Aghdam Mosque. I could email it to you if you'd like. — Golden  call me maybe? 21:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Carlotta Gall and Anton Troianovski are unreliable partisan sources. Gall is based in Istanbul and has applauded Azeri/Turkish war crimes. Troianoski also frequently makes pro-Azerbaijan inflammatory statements. The RIA Novosti source only makes one passing mention to buildings in Agdam. Since other buildings such as Panah Ali Khan's Palace still exist, calling the mosque the last building seems to be false. I removed the Galafyev quote because it has no source. The AP News source does not mention anything suggesting the mosque "remained in this state until it came back under the control of Azerbaijan". It even mentions "the livestock are gone now", and this is consistent with the restorations funded by the Republic of Artsakh.
 * Besides all of this, you added a section Agdam_Mosque based on a memorial source. I checked it, I can't find any mention of "These bodies were first placed in the mosque" sentence, where's it coming from?
 * Moreover, After the capture, according to eyewitnesses, the city was plundered, destroyed and burned. - I can't verify this sentence. In fact, after checking that book, I couldn't find anything about Agdam being destroyed after the capture, it was entirely during the battle. Please explain.
 * I see you appealed your topic-ban with promises to not be disruptive in any topic area, but there's already a problematic edit. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * where's it coming from, I checked other language Wikipedias, apparently this coming from this source XOCALI (archive.is). Abrvagl (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)


 * regarding your edit where you restored material with comments "No other "swine in mosques" related incident exists". It does exit for example the Mamar Mosque in Gubadli, . PS. Sources just FYI. --Abrvagl (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "I got access to the source with Resource Exchange and in no part of it does it mention the Aghdam Mosque."
 * I have full access to the source too, thanks. Did you read the entire page? It doesn't specifically mention the Agdam mosque (or any other mosque for that matter), because the page in question is dedicated to providing a full overview of the backgrounds and tactics used by both sides. Here's the excerpt for other interested readers (its located on p. 329):
 * Further, the Armenian government expended considerable, albeit unsuccessful, efforts attempting to frame its conflict with the majority Muslim-populated Azerbaijan, as a “war on terror”, in a barely-veiled appeal to George W. Bush-era rhetoric (Ghazanchyan 2020). A number of European media outlets accepted and channelled this view and framed the conflict as one between Christians and Muslims (HayFanat 2020; Higgins 2020). Azerbaijan, in turn, played up its image as a multi-ethnic and poly-confessional country with a regime committed to tolerance, in contrast to mono-ethnic Armenia. In parallel, Azerbaijan also appealed to its “fraternal” relations with the Muslim world. A narrative of barbarous Armenians who turn mosques into pigsties was an important component of mobilization (AzerTac 2020a).
 * A narrative of Armenian barbarians + pigsties was used in the 2020 war in order to mobilize popular support in Azerbaijan. The apparent fact that the Armenians actually did convert the Agdam mosque into a pigstie doesn't negate this. Hence, this material from Gamaghelyan & Rumyantsev should stay. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Agdam was used by Azerbaijani forces to fire BM-21 Grad long-range missiles
In this edit I properly worded statement according to the source. Could you explain why you reverted it? Abrvagl (talk) 19:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I added a source and restored the edit, per source. Pretty straight forward and doesn't need explanation if you opened the added reference. HRW, p.13
 * In January 1992, Azerbaijani forces began attacking Stepanakert with Grad missiles, which are jet-propelled rockets intended as anti personnel weapons.
 * Also from the same source, Aghdam along with Fuzuli were staging ground for Azeri operations in Karabakh, HRW, p.33 ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You did not restored an edit, because I never removed it. What I did is properly reworded the statement according to the source. You rephrased the statement from the source in the way that it implies that Azerbaijan was shelling Stepanakert while knowingly targeting the civilians, which is not supported by any of the sources you provided, and this definitely needs explanation.
 * Rachel Denber; Robert K. Goldman (1992) does not state that Aghdam was used to shell the Stepanakert.
 * Denber, Rachel (July 1993) state that "In addition to the bombings, Azerbaijani forces continually shelled Stepanakert with Grad and other long-range missiles mostly, according to Armenian sources, from Agdam, an Azerbaijani town about twenty-four kilometers east of Stepanakert.".
 * First, you wrote that Azerbaijani side used BM-21 Grad to shell the Stepanakert. I could not find any of the sources specifying model of the multiple launch rocket system. Maximum distance BM-21 of that time could fire is 21km in the best case, which means that Stepanakert, which located 24km far from the Aghdam, was out of the range. This means that information about shelling of the Stepanakert from the Aghdam shall be attributed to the Armenian forces as it is stated in the source.
 * Second, your wording which implies that Azerbaijan was knowingly targeting the civilians is not supported by any of the sources you provided. Denber, Rachel (July 1993) lists some cases when cevilians were affected in result of the shelling, but it does not state that civilians were knowingly targeted.
 * Based on above information I reworded During the First Nagorno-Karabakh war, Agdam was used by Azerbaijani forces to fire BM-21 Grad long-range missiles at the Armenian populace of Stepanakert to this According to Armenian sources, Azerbaijani forces continually shelled Stepanakert with long-range missiles from Aghdam during the First Nagorno-Karabakh War. By doing such I ensured that infromation matches to what sources says and removed WP:OR/WP:SYNTH parts while keeping the main information to be delivered in the article. Abrvagl (talk) 09:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I already showed you that the source I added has no "attribution", don't waste my time; HRW, p.13
 * In January 1992, Azerbaijani forces began attacking Stepanakert with Grad missiles, which are jet-propelled rockets intended as anti personnel weapons.
 * And even in your mentioned source, the shelling itself isn't attributed, what is attributed to Armenian sources is the location where Azeris bombed Stepanakert from;
 * "In addition to the bombings, Azerbaijani forces continually shelled Stepanakert with Grad and other long-range missiles mostly, according to Armenian sources, from Agdam, an Azerbaijani town about twenty-four kilometers east of Stepanakert.".
 * The wording says Armenian populace, which is true. Stepanakert's population is Armenian and who else Azeris would be targeting if not Armenians?
 * When it comes to exact Grad model, I don't have strong objections with just stating Grad missiles without a model. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "Armenian populace" implies that civilians were knowingly targeted which is not true and not supported by the sources. I believe that Azerbaijan was targeting military personnel and structure, you can believe that Azerbaijan was targeting all Armenians(including civilians), but the point is that sources do not provide such information and we can not write an article based on assumptions. Thus the way I reworded does not have such issues and still delivers information you wanted to deliver. The main information is that according to Armenian sources Aghdam was used to shell Stepanakert. Were they targeting Armenian populace or not is WP:UNDUE. Abrvagl (talk) 09:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thus the way I reworded does not have such issues and still delivers information you wanted to deliver.
 * Stop repeating the same talking point; the way you reworded does have issues as it falsely attributes shelling of Stepanakert to Armenian sources, which isn't the case in any of the sources. The HRW source I added clearly has 0 attribution to "Armenian sources", and even the original source itself only attributes the location where Azeris bombed from to Armenian sources, not the bombing itself.
 * Regarding the populace, I'll do more research and reply later, I don't have much time now. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Zani, I did not falsely attribute shelling of the Stepanakert to the Armenian sources. I properly attributed shelling of the Stepanakert with long-range missiles from Aghdam to Armenian sources. The Denber, Rachel (July 1993) states exactly like that "Azerbaijani forces continually shelled Stepanakert with Grad and other long-range missiles mostly, according to Armenian sources, from Agdam". The second source(HRW) Rachel Denber; Robert K. Goldman (1992) does not state anything about that Aghdam was used to shell the Stepanakert. Abrvagl (talk) 10:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I had time to do some searching. Even Cornell, who's usually pro-Azeri, confirms Aghdam was a strategic town from which Azeris had shelled Stepanakert;
 * Seeing the disarray of Azerbaijani forces on the eastern and southern fronts, the Armenians moved on July 4 to besiege Agdam, a strategic town just east Karabakh from which Azerbaijani forces had shelled Armenian positions, including Stepanakert. p.88
 * Aghdam being staging ground for Azeri operations was also confirmed in the source I added, HRW, p.33.
 * It's undoubtable that Stepanakert was shelled from Aghdam, even when Cornell confirms it, the opposite of "Armenian sources". ZaniGiovanni (talk) 06:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, now that you provided additional source confirming that Stepanakert was shelled from the Aghdam, then it should be like that During the First Nagorno-Karabakh War, Azerbaijani forces utilized Aghdam, one of the strategic towns, to continually shell Armenian positions, including Stepanakert, with long-range missiles. Abrvagl (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)