Talk:Turkish Van

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Turkish Van article.
WikiProject Turkey This article is part of WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Portal:Cats
 Cats Portal
This article is supported by the Cats WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to Cat-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments
This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.
This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

Contents

[edit] When and where

"Turkish Vans have been living in their native Turkey for thousands of years" Plain ignorant. Turkey hasn't even been there for thousand years, to begin with. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:141.215.11.146 (talk • contribs).

Everyone knows what that means. Semantics does not equal ignorance. Pschemp 05:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoever put this article together did a great job. Thanks!

Keep in mind that most Wikipedia articles are collaborative efforts, so what makes an article great is often the work of many people. You can use the history function to see how the article evolved over time.--DooMDrat 12:24, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah but I wrote the main article. Thanks to the community for format tweaking though. :) Thanks for the complement. Pschemp 20:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Come to Turkey and see what a real Van cat is. I do not know the ones in Europe but here in Turkey, all Van cats are pure white with one eye green, one eye blue. That's exactly a Van cat... They're not currently sold here to ordinary people. A special vet clinic in Van (city) breeds them for their protection of genetics and blood purity. --JohnEmerald 06:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) that's easy.. Enter http://www.google.com.tr, enter the graphics section, write "van kedi" or "van cat" and press search. View the results ; )

I am well aware that in Turkey a Van Kedi is an all white cat with odd eyes. However, the Turkish Vans that were first imported from Turkey to Europe had color on their heads and tails and that has been preserved in the breed and Turkish Vans in all registering bodies that accept them to be shown around the world require vans with color. There is a movement to accept the all white cat as a separate breed under the name Van Kedi or Vankedisi. I have never claimed Turkish Vans are Van Kedis by the Turkish definition. In fact I mentioned this in the article if you read closely. I know many Turks have an issue with this, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. Turkish Van breeders have no issue with the Van Kedi being an all white cat with odd eyes, it is just considered a separate breed from the the Turkish Van. Many, Many Vans that were imported from Van had the head and tail color pattern and are just as authentic Turkish cats, they are just not what is preferred in their native area. Pschemp 15:30, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


My Turkish Van Kedesi died July 15, 2005 at the age of 18.5. I brought her back from Izmir, Turkey, although she was born at Ankara Zoo. The family that brought her to Izmir Zoo could not keep her. When I got Pamuk there were lines for Turkish Van kittens, all white, with odd-eyes... they couldn't keep enough for the demand. But Pamuk was 6 months old, and no one wanted an older cat. I took her because she would have been euthanised the next day. I brought Pamuk back stateside with me and she was my lifelong friend. All white, with an Amber eye and an Azure eye she was simply gorgeous. (http://www.pamuk.us and http://www.myspace.com/pamuk). I miss her dearly. I rescued a 3.5 year old Turkish Angora from a shelter yesterday that had been returned by 3 families for heel biting.. Goodness, do people know nothing about these breeds? Sophia is a lovely cat, very affectionate, almost as interested in the water as Pamuk, and quite charming. No cat can replace Pamuk, but these breeds are loving, generous cats that can give you a lifetime of joy. I highly recommend the Turkish Van and the Turkish Angora, you will not be dissapointed. [Annette] 13:08, 25 July 2005

Wow, I have a Turkish Van cat and I never knew most of the info in this article. :) XYaAsehShalomX 21:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Misplaced Picture

Could someone with more experience please remove the pic from the External links section. It really doesn't belong there and doesn't do it justice. Thanks since I'm a newbie. LdyDragonfly 06:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I've moved it. Check the version difference to see how it was done. Check out the editing help for more info, and try out anything you're unsure of in the sandbox.--Drat (Talk) 09:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Van Cats in Turkey

Turkish Turkish Van Cat
Enlarge
Turkish Turkish Van Cat

It would be nice if someone with the knowledge could add a paragraph about the differences between Van cats in Turkey and abroad. Bertilvidet 20:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh you mean that part of Turkey that used to be Armenia? Let's not go there. This is about the established breed, not the Van kedi. pschemp | talk 20:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes Anatolia, nowadays Turkey, used to be many different countries and empires...It could be nice if someone could sort out why the breeds not are considered the same around the globe. Living in Turkey, this article made me rather confused. Bertilvidet 21:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What does "Van" mean?

In the intro it is stated "The word van refers to their color pattern, where the color is restricted to the head and the tail, and the rest of the cat is white". What is meant by that???? I assume that there is no doubt that Van (Kurdish: Wan, Armenian Վան)is the area in Eastern Turkey from where the breed comes from. Bertilvidet 07:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I will be bold and remove / reword the paragraph if no objections are made within 24 hours. Bertilvidet 12:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Please do not. That is referring to van without a capital V. In the cat breeding world, that does refer to the pattern. Please do not change facts you don't know about. It is explained quite clearly later that Van with a capital V is where the cats came from. You still don't get that this is an article about a specific cat breed, with specific terminology and requirements. You are not a cat breeder so please leave information alone. This not an article about Turkey, or what Turks consider Van Kedi. This is an article about the Turkish Van breed as shown in the major cat showing associations. If you want to write an article about Van Kedi in turkey feel free to do so, but this article is something different. pschemp | talk 13:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Please remain civil. I do believe that the article should be accesible also for non experts, and I do certainly not claim to be one. I am also even not a native English speaker, so I assume you deeply disrespect me. With my naivity I do not even know the word "van" means, in any meaning referring to a color pattern. I do humbly propose the superior people to explain these issues, so that we the naive, ignorant mob can have a chance of maybe becoming just a little bit less uninformed. Bertilvidet 13:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I am being civil. You don't know about cat breeding. Stating the truth is not uncivil. You disrespect me by assuming I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to cats. pschemp | talk 13:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I hope there are no objections - but I have edited the start of the entry to make it clear that Turkish Vans and Van cats are different. There needs to be a separate entry for them. (It is called a Van Kedisi (cat of Van), btw, and not a Van Kedi.)Meowy 02:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
"Van" in a place name means town or settlement, as in Yerevan, Tatvan, Nakhchivan, etc. Meowy 16:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe so. However, the lead of the article claims that van refers to the colour. This must be clarified. Bertilvidet 20:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
You are getting mixed up again Bertivedet. In the general terminology of cat breeders, van (with a lowercase v) refers to the pattern, as it mentions in the source cited. Van with a captial V refers to Lake Van. Don't confuse the two. Also, if you want to write an article about the Van kedisi in Turkey, that's fine, but that information doesn't belong here, because that's a separate breed. Don't assume that the English words, Turkish Van are just a translation of Van Kedisi, they aren't, they are a separate breed and need their own article. Again, we are talking about English usage here, as this is the English wikipedia. Please try to remember that. Even meowy up there agrees. pschemp | talk 20:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Here's another reference from the Cat Fanciers Associaition, the people who make the breed standard referring to the van pattern on a different breed, "Includes all expressions of the white spotting gene including the van pattern. [1].pschemp | talk 20:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Pschemp, I notice you restored the edited text that I had erased and that went "Turkish Vans have been living in their native Anatolia for thousands of years and various references to "white ringtail" cats through history show this. The classic red tabby and white pattern gives the ringtail appearance and has been found depicted on Hittite jewelry of antiquity. Also, archeologists have found "...relics of an ancient battle during the occupation of Armenia by the Romans included armor and banners displaying an image of a large white cat with rings on its tail." All of this "history" is in fact nonsense, which is why I have erased it again. Firstly, as you yourself have said, Turkish Vans are not Van Cats, there fore the statement that they have been living in their "native anatolia for thousands of years" is clearly wrong even in your eyes. There is also no evidence whatsoever that Van Cats have lived in the Lake Van region (which is NOT part of historical Anatolia BTW) for thosuands of years. Maybe they have - but there is no evidence to prove it. Show me a picture of any cat, white or otherwise, on Hittite jewelery. You can't, because it doesn't exist. And even if it did - the Hittite lands were nowhere near lake Van! Same for the "relics of an ancient battle" comment - totaly made-up history! You take care of the cat breeding side of the entry, and I'll take care of the history side!

Meowy 22:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Pschemp, your repeated re-insertion of the deleted material, together with your refusal to address the points I have raised above, is puzzling. I also note that the website you cite as the source has no references whatsoever to back up the laughable information it claims to be "history".

[edit] swimming cat

I wound up here looking for a pic of a swimming cat. Kinda dissapointing! -- Kendrick7talk 01:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is one: swimming white cat Meowy 17:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That's cute but it isn't a Turkish Van. pschemp | talk 19:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

However, it is (probably) a Van cat Meowy 19:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again, we are talking about the Turkish Van as a registered breed here, not "Van cats." Once again, you fail to see the difference. pschemp | talk 22:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Kendrick, Here is a picture of a swimming Turkish Van [2]. pschemp | talk 03:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Challenge to Turkish Van

I acknowledge that the scource cited by pschemp does not have any references. However, that is not necessarily cause to think that it is false. What are the reasons behind the challenge of this information? Perhaps, if the challenger can produce reason to think that this other unreferenced source is invalid for some reason other than simply the lack of reference, maybe then we could determine where the facts might lie. However, simply to challenge a source because it is not itself referenced is probably not the best way to go, again, unless the person issuing the challenge has specific and creditable reason to believe that the unreferenced source is unreliable. Badbilltucker 20:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I had already, I thought, given ample reasons why the offending paragraph can safely be classed as “fake history”. Really, it is so obviously nonsense that I find it difficult to imagine anyone would actually believe it. However, I will reiterate my reasons again.
Turkish Vans have been living in their native Anatolia for thousands of years
The term “Anatolia” applied to the territory of the Roman Empire (and its successor the Byzantine Empire) that was located in Asia minor. Lake Van was never a part of the Roman Empire, so Anatolia can hardly be called their “native” land, can it? “For thousands of years” - where is there evidence for this sweeping statement? There is none.
various references to "white ringtail" cats
Where are these references? They cannot be cited because they do not exist. And even if they did exist, they are irrelevant since the fur of the Van cat is 100% white and has no markings on its tale.
The classic red tabby and white pattern gives the ringtail appearance and has been found depicted on Hittite jewelry (sic) of antiquity.
No such jewellery has been found. And the Hittite lands were nowhere near Lake Van – so it is, again, completely irrelevant.
…archaeologists have found "...relics of an ancient battle during the occupation of Armenia by the Romans included armor and banners displaying an image of a large white cat with rings on its tail".
This is such a ludicrous statement that it is hard to know where to begin. What battle? When and where did it take place? When was it excavated? Sorry to break the bad news to you – but not a single battle site has been excavated. In fact, it is worse – not a single battleground site has even been identified. Even the location of best-recorded one (fought in 69BC between the Roman general Lucullus and king Tigran of Armenia) remains completely unidentified. And anyway, the Romans came nowhere near Lake Van. Do you know what these “banners” would have been made of? Textiles, or skin. Do you actually seriously believe that any such relics could have survived?
Finally, the “article” containing this “history” has been lifted from what (based on the url) appears to have been someone’s amateur website (http://www.turcoman.btinternet.co.uk/) - a site that no longer exists.Meowy 19:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
No disagreement with any of the above, based on my own lack of research. However, I still find no specific sources cited which specifically contradict the information, simply what seem to me, as an outsider, to be implications of possible flaws in the sources used by the other side. I acknowledge and respect the fact that proving a negative is almost an impossibility, however, if you could cite sources which specifically support your statements regarding the unreliability of the sources you question, I think we would all be grateful. Also, please note that there have been recent changes to the article itself. Please indicate whether you believe the article as it currently exists is flawed, and where and why. Lastly, note that you yourself have reverted the article three times to reflect your own opinion, which you have (at least immediately above) cited no specific sources to support. Badbilltucker 21:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
One problem here is that Meowy is still claiming that a Van cat is totally white. In Turkey, a "Van Kedisi" in that region is all white. However, this article is about the registered and pedigreed breed, not what the Turks call a "Van cat". (and you will find patterned cats roaming the Van region of Turkey, though the turks themselves ignore them). So, Meowy's reasoning is based on a flawed assumption to begin with. I have told him/her many times to start a separate article about the Van Kedisi, the all white cat in Turkey which is a separate breed if they would like. Additionally, he/she needs to keep in mind that this is the English Wikipedia and in English, "Turkish Van" refers specifically to this pedigreed breed, as opposed to the Turkish "Van Kedisi" (Van Cat) which refers to the all white cat from that region. I have to say I haven't really been answering because so far, Meowy has failed to grasp this basic distinction, and seems to be editing from a Turkish nationalistic point of view. pschemp | talk 22:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
pschemp, the first comment in this discussion page reveals how unqualified you are to talk about this subject. "Turkish Vans have been living in their native Turkey for thousands of years" you wrote, blindly ignorant of all the cultural sensitivites that such an inaccurate statement displays. And you are still doing it. The history of the Turkish Van does not extend back further than the 1950s. Anything older refers to the Van cat / Van Kedisi - the all white Van cat. You do not have the right to rewrite history just because you own a non-all white "Turkish Van", and see some prestige (and perhaps monetary value) in faking the breed's historical past. Meowy 00:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Badbilltucker - one cannot disprove an article that has no sources, written by an anonymous person. If I were to say I saw little green aliens having a picnic in my back garden, you cannot disprove it. All you could say is that it such a laughable story, so devoid of any proof that common sense would suggest it to be false. That is exactly what I have attempted to do with this fake Van cat "history", becasue it would be unbelievable to anyone with even a basic knowledge of the history of Armenia. Pschemp alas, does not have even that basic knowledge, but is seeking to take sole possesion of all aspects of "her" article. All I can suggest is that we ask some persons who have written other entries to do with the history of Armenia, or the Roman Empire, or the Hittites, to make some comments here. Meowy 00:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
why? WP:CITE is really all that applies here. If you can cite a source that has the claim of "Hittite jewlery" with such cats, fine. If not, the claim has no place. Many animal depictions are known from Luwian archaeology, many of them depicting mythological beasts. Unless we can state precisely what we are referring to here, this is basically an urban legend and has no place here. dab (𒁳) 08:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, If you read the section below, I have at least 3 sources which discuss this. pschemp | talk 13:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Falsifying history?

OK, I now see what pschemp's end-game is. I have just noted that she has erased the part of the introductory paragraph that mentioned that there were differences between "Turkish Vans" and the cats known as "Van cats".

Pschemp owns a "Turkish Van", perhaps she also breeds them. It would be in her interest to maintain that the "Turkish Van" is a 2000 year old breed of cat, attaching all sort of romantic tales to its history. In fact, the "Turkish Van" has no obvious connection at all to the Van cat: in looks, behaviour, and colouring it is entirely different. And its known history goes back no further than a couple of anonymous cats that were picked up in Turkey in the 1950s.Meowy 00:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly urge the above user to assume good faith and not make what are potentially slanderous statements regarding someone who disagrees with them. Badbilltucker 01:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I did use "perhaps"es and a "?". And she does own a Turkish Van cat (an award-winning one). I think people can be allowed make their own conclusions. Anyway, I'll remove the F word. Maybe I should have just accused her of being an obsessed cat owner! Meowy 01:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If you didn't want to malign me, you wouldn't have posted such nonsense. Again, you show your ignorance of the breed. Making the title of this section "Falsifying history for financial gain" is a clear attack, even if you removed it later. I have sources (noted below) that back me up. pschemp | talk 02:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment

The following seems to me to be the heart of the recent reversions, although I welcome input from both of the involved parties. There is a dispute whether this page should be named in accord with the official naming of the breed as per at least one officially recognized cat organization, or whether the name of the article should be applied in this instance in accord with what seems to perhaps be unofficial Turkish convention for a broader grouping of cats. So, again, in my eyes, the argument seems to be based on the two following points:
(1) Should the article be named to reflect the official usage of a prominent cat breeding organization, or should the article reflect what is perhaps common usage in Turkey, and
(2) is the text supplied relating to the breed and/or the broader grouping of cats known by that name, specifically regarding the history of the name and the breed, accurate and relevant?
Again, if I have misstated either position, I welcome correction. Badbilltucker 01:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There should be two pages, one for the "Turkish Van", one for the "Van cat", and each page should be named accordingly. The problem is what the content of the "Turkish Van" page should contain. The "Turkish Van is a recognised (and recognisable) breed. However, its breeders and owners do seek to make a connection between it and the Van cat, and, as we see, some of them are somewhat fanatical about it. Pschemp seems to want to have it both ways - she refuses to have any mention of Van cats where it points out the clear differences between them and "Turkish Vans", yet she wants to appropriate the substantial history of the Van cat and assign it to the Turkish Van, and even unjustifiably elaborate on that history. Meowy 01:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
There should be a page for Turkish Van and one for Van Kedisi, which, surprise, we already have. The name Turkish Van is not just the official usage of a prominent cat breeding organisation, it is the name used by every cat showing and registration organisation in the world. In Turkey, the whites and the coloreds run together and are definitely related. However, the Turks only pay attention to the all white cats, while the cats with a small bit of color are ignored. They come from the same breeding stock and run together in the wild. However, this article is focused on the cats with color, exported from Van by two British women and subsequently developed into the breed. I've been to Van, and seen that both types interbreed. But, this article is not about the Turkish street cat, it is about the breed recognised, documented and pedigreed by all the major cat registeries. The historical text is accurate and relevent, but Meowy is insisting that it isn't because she is pushing the native Turkish POV. That is fine, but the Turkish POV is talking about a bunch of street cats, not the registered and pedigreed Turkish Vans. These are now two separate breeds due to man's interference, but they very much share a common origin. There is no doubt what the article should be called, because in English, Turkish Van only refers to this breed. Van Kedisi (or Van Kedi) refers to the all white street cat. Hence the separate articles. I personally have been to Van, I also know the pedigrees of the original cats and all subsequent imports. There are a few all whites in there that were used for genetic diversity when colored one couldn't be found, so the connection is not a mystery. Meowy knows nothing about the breed as it was developed, only her own narrow POV from Turkey. She is welcome to present the views of the native Turks in the Van Kedisi are she wants, but this article is not about the Van Kedisi. Turkish Van isn't even a phrase in Turkish, they use Van Kedisi, which does not translate to Turkish Van, but to Van Cat. Additionally, this link here backs up their ancient Turkish origin. pschemp | talk 02:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The Van cat is not a "street cat"! You are displaying complete ignorance. If anything, your "Turkish Van" is a street cat, since it is descended from a pair of unidentified cats that (whatever they were) were not pure-bred Van cats. BTW, I have been to Van dozens of times,and seen hundreds of all-white Van cats - not one of which resembled a "Turkish Van". If you want to make this article only about the Turkish Van, then you should remove all reference to Van cats, including all of the history (since there is no history at all for Turkish Vans that goes beyond the 1950s).

However, the discussion is actually getting interesting. Are the owners of Turkish Vans asserting that the Van cat is actually a mongrel offshoot of the "Turkish Van" that should really be eliminated because it is contaminating the purity of the original breed (the original being the "Turkish Van")? Meowy 02:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you educate yourself with this link. Both breeds are found naturally in Turkey living without human assitance, which is what is meant by street cat. Btw, where are your sources? pschemp | talk 02:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
No, I want to know what you, as the owner of a Turkish Van, have to say in reply to the question at the end of my last post. You seemed to be saying earlier that the "Turkish Van" is actually the true breed. I want clarification of your position. Meowy 02:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Your question is irrelevant, bizzare twisting of my words. I guess this means you don't have sources. Too bad WP:VERIFY is a policy then. Here's another one I have. Oh and here they are listed as separate breeds due to the difference in color. Oh and here is the article you claim I was making up here written by a Turk no less. (Information on the original publisher , Turcoman International, can be seen here the magazine is now defunct, but it doesn't invalidate it as a source.) "Investigation has shown relics of an ancient battle during the occupation of Armenia by the Romans included armor and banners displaying an image of a large white cat with rings on its tail." And here is shows they are related "In its homeland, the favoured cat is the all-white Van Kedi with one blue and one yellow eye; these are considered to be very good luck and among the few domestic animals kept as pets...Interestingly enough, it is the marked - and not the white - Van cat that has made a name for the breed outside of Turkey. This was due to the fact that the cats brought to Britain in 1955 and almost all of the Vans descended from them were not white, but head-and-tail marked" pschemp | talk 02:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Regarding my question, it was very relevant to try and throw some light on where you are coming from. Meowy 03:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm coming from the position of sourced information. Where are you coming from? pschemp | talk 03:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary break 1

The answer here is simple. Meowy needs to stop removing sourced information from Turkish Van. Turkish Van should stay at its present title, with its history section which is backed by a number of sources. Van Kedisi should be where the Turkish idea of a cat from Van airs its views. Since these article already exist in their proper places, with proper information, there is little to address other than Meowy wrongly accusing me of inserting fake information and accusing me of "Falsifying history for financial gain." Such lovely behaviour. pschemp | talk 03:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

As an outsider, it seems to me that the most likely guideline which is relevant in this case is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna). To quote that page directly:
...beware of informal common names. Many species have multiple common names; however, only one of these is usually recognised as formally correct. For example, the Southern Boobook is known in various parts of the world as "ruru", "mopoke", "morepork", "boobook", "New Zealand Owl", "Tasmanian Spotted Owl", and so on. Create redirects from these colloquial names, but place the main entry under the official common name — in this case, "Southern Boobook".
There is a difference between a breed of cat and a species of cat. Van Cats and Turkish Vans are not different species, or different names for the same species, they are different breeds. Meowy 20:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The information supplied by Meowy seems to all be related to the common name of the van cats as used in Turkey, common names of the type the above quotation warns us to be wary. Pschemp, on the other hand, has demonstrated that the name "Turkish Van" in the English-speaking world is primarily applied and exclusively officially applied only to the bicolor variety of Turkish cat. While I acknowledge that the similar page in the Turkish or Anatolian languages may well have different content, by wikipedia's guidelines on naming conventions, I cannot see any just cause, based on wikipedia guidelines, for the page not to be about the officially recognized bicolor breed. Now, I also note that there already is a page for Van cat, which is a dismabiguation page with links to both the Turkish Van and the Van Kedisi. It seems to me that the most reasonable way to proceed in this matter, again, in accord with wikipedia guidelines, would be to have the Turkish Van page be reserved for the formally recognized Turkish Van breed, the Van Kedisi page be reserved for the other formally recognized breed, and the Van cat disambiguation page remain as it is, with perhaps a bit more text indicating some of the relevant information Meowy seeks to insert in the current article. Badbilltucker 14:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

As a cat lover and outsider that ca me in via the request for comment, I have now read about the dispute. The article "Turkish Van" should be about the western breed with colours. Van Kedisi is about the typically all-white breed of cats in the Van region. The dispute seems mostly about such pointless and hurtful wordings as calling Van Kedesi "street cats". That's not exactly helpful for a debate. --Regebro 17:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Street cats is not a perjorative. All breeds started out as street cats until someone decided to start a documented breeding program. The offense taken is an over-reaction. pschemp | talk 18:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The situation is this:
In 1955 two British women returned from a visit to Turkey with a pair of cats. They had obtained these cats while visiting the Lake Van region. After returning to Britain, they began to claim that the cats were Van cats. Perhaps they actually believed that to be the case. However, the true Van cat is a quite different breed, and has been mentioned in numerous historical accounts about Van. In those sources the cat is explicitly mentioned as being an all-white cat. See, for example, their description in the 1951 article by the famous Kurdish writer Yasar Kemal, which I have placed on the Van Kedisi page.
The pair of cats and their offspring were selectively bred. This eventually resulted in the breed which has been coined a "Turkish Van" becoming a recognised breed of cat for show and breeding purposes in Britain and in America. There is nothing unusual in this - it is the way that many modern breeds of cat have originated.
Unfortunately, owners and breeders of Turkish Vans have continued to maintain that there is a connection between the newly established Turkish Van breed and the far older Van Cat breed. The reason for doing this, apart from not having to admit that a rather basic identification mistake was made back in 1955, seems to be one of self-interest: to give the Turkish Van a longer, more glamorous, and more significant ancestry. This has involved them blatantly appropriating the substantial history of the Van cat, together with an increasing denial of the existence of the true Van cat as a proper breed worthy of any significance. Note how Pschemp dismissed them as mere "street cats" and has also resorted to shades of racism when saying that the Van cat is just a "Turkish idea".
Since the plentiful historical records of Van cats mention that they are all-white cats, advocates of the Turkish Van also seem to have been involved some historical fabrication. This includes the "Hittite jewellery illustrating Turkish Van cats" and the "Roman armour and banners displaying an image of a large white cat" stuff that I have previously objected to. Take for example, the alleged finding of the battle relics by archaeologists. In Turkey, it is obligatory by law for anyone undertaking archaeological work to submit a yearly summary of the results and findings, which is then published in a yearly journal called "Kazı Sunucları Toplantısı". The author of the web-based article cited by Pschemp is unable to cite that journal (or any other academic source) because the "relics" are pure invention.
It may be unwelcome news for Pschemp, but the history of the "Turkish Van" breed does not extend further back than 1955. Also, the Turkish Van has no obvious connection to Van cats beyond the possibility that the pair of 1955 cats had some Van cat characteristics as a result of interbreeding with them.
So, where should this leave the content for this entry?
The entry should cease making false claims about the history of the "Turkish Van", and also cease its unjustifiable appropriation of the history of the Van cat. It should honestly state that though breeders and owners of Turkish Vans claim there is a connection to Van cats, the claim is contentious, there is no provable connection, and that the physical characteristics of Van cats are different from that of the Turkish Van.Meowy 20:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
You still haven't produced any sources to back up your point of view. I already cited the quarterly magazine "Turcoman International" and gave its publication information. Yet you still accuse me of making things up. If you do a google search you will find other sites mentioning this magazine and citing its articles. I don't know how I'm supposed to communicate with someone who constantly accuses me of lying in the face of cited evidence of the contrary. pschemp | talk 21:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Arbitrary break 2

I regret to say that it is, as Pschemp indicated above, still impossible to find any justification of Meowy's position, as Meowy is still explicitly not addressing the matter of sources for his/her own position. Nor would any archaeologist say that the absence of definite evidence of a cat of this coloring in the archaeological evidence qualify as evidence in any way. This is particularly true when we consider that the only real conclusive evidence which could ever be generated would be uncorrupted DNA and/or actual fur itself. Meowy's statement regarding "false claims" to the Turkish Van's ancestry clearly indicate that there is reliable, substantial evidence which directly contradicts these "false claims", else they would not be labeled false. I think we are all waiting for this reliable, substantial evidence to be produced. If it is not, then, on the basis of the official policy of Wikipedia:Verifiability, these statements should cease being made. Badbilltucker 22:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Badbilltucker, you seem to have not read (or not understood) anything I have written. It is pschemp, representing a vested interest group in the shape of Turkish Van breeders and owners, that is making the wild claims about the history of the Turkish Van, none of which can be backed up by credible archeological or textual evidence. It is up to her to cite credible sources, something she has not done so far. Citing biased works produced by other Turkish Van breeders and owners is not citing credible sources. Meowy 23:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I fear you are seeing conspiracies and making accusations you can't back up again Meowy. I'm not representing anything but the facts. My sources are credible, in fact the main one wasn't written by a breeder or owner, but a Turk in a quarterly Turkish magazine for English speaking people. You are only claiming they aren't credible because they contradict your claims. Besides, you have no produced no evidence to the contrary. pschemp | talk 02:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
And what about the factual accuracy of the article cited? Just because it was written by a Turkish person (imagine that!) and featured in a Turkish magazine that caters to anglophones does not prove anything. Hakob 04:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
It proves that it wasn't written by a cat breeder as Meowy claims. It also happens to be backed up by several other sources. I see you equate writing in English with something evil. Nice assumption. pschemp | talk 07:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Something evil? You stated that the Turkish quarterly was for English-speaking people. I just phrased it differently in my reply. I did not use "anglophone" pejoratively, if that is what struck you. Anyway, all we can do now is wait for Meowy to come up with a credible source. Hakob 09:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The academic "status" of that Turkish quarterly can be assessed based on their own words: content must be of Turkish orientation and positive in atmosphere. Destructive or critical articles about internal Turkish affairs not encouraged. Because the article in question has no references or sources mentioned, it is probable that most of the content was lifted directly from one of the numerous "Turkish Van" breeders’ websites. It is the usual route for propaganda production: a publication is printed so that another publication can quote it in order to give otherwise unsustainable statements a veneer of credibility and respectability. Meowy 16:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Another assumption of bad faith you have no proof of. In fact, if you go read breeders sites, you will find nothing there that was supposedly "plagarized" by our author in Turkey. I you still haven't given up on your conspiracy theory. Once again, you'll need some proof that the whole world is out to get you. pschemp | talk 16:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
On the Van kedisi page there is a source from 1951 (which predates the known origin of the "Turkish Van") that explicitly states that Van cats are entirely white. I can find no source that says that in the Lake Van region here were cats that resembled the colouring of the "Turkish Van". Nor, I think, can Pschemp. I think that the catchphrase "swimming cat", appropriated by Turkish Van breeders, originates in a 1950s travel book by Freya Stark. I read it about a decade ago but don't have access to that book at the moment to check: it would be interesting to know how she described the physical appearance of those cats.Meowy 16:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, and some Van cats are totally white. The locals ignore the rest of them because they aren't "lucky." Doesn't mean the colored ones don't exist, or that the colored ones aren't Turkish Vans. The two types co-exist in Van. pschemp | talk 16:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The "rest of them" are ignored because thay are not pure-bred Van Cats, just in the same way as Turkish Van breeders insist that for a cat to be called a "Turkish Van" it must not have a white tail or all-white head. Are you suggesting now that cats that do have all-white heads are still Turkish Vans, and that the current breed standard for the Turksh Van is wrong? Meowy 17:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I hate to tell you, but there is no such thing as a "pure-bred" cat anywhere. Especially if the cats are running naturally, which many of the van cats are, you have no clue what genetics have been introduced. The only thing that exists are pedigreed cats, who have their complete genetic history recorded from a certain point in time and domestic cats. Van Kedisi haven't had breeding records kept on them, so claims of genetic purity on your part are a bit outlandish. I've always noted that Van Kedisi are not currently, in modern breeding systems, the same thing, but they do share a common ancestry. I know this from the pedigrees of the Turkish Vans. pschemp | talk 17:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. The only thing that exists for certain in Turkish Vans is their pedigree history - a history which dated back no further than 1955. So stop trying to extend its history into "thousands of years"! Before 1955, there are only references to Van Cats, references which describe a very different animal from that which is now known as a Turkish Van (for example, Yaşar Kemal's 1951 description: "The Van cat is quite large and milky white and when curled up you take it for a heap of cotton, so white is it". Also, and equally importantly, the references after 1955 still only mention the all-white cats as being Van Cats. Nothing at all about ring-tailed cats. Obviously there were, and still are, plenty of cats living in the Van region that are not "Van Cats" in the sense that they do not have the distinguishing characteristics that make up what is considered to be a Van Cat. Meowy 20:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Since you are presenting the same old incorrect and quite tired arguments, I'm not going to bother to respond. Both colors live and have lived in the region for thousands of years, and share history. Period. pschemp | talk 23:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Arbitrary break 3

The standards of verifiability are such that this published source in a magazine which is presumably (I don't know the magazine myself) generally perceived as not being explicitly biased in favor of Turkish Van cats by an author whose own credentials have not been similarly challenged is sufficient for verification. However, I could see a challenge to this source if sufficient external evidence could be pointed to which supports the contention that it is biased as per the above. In any event, Pschemp has seemingly provided the verification required for the inclusion of the material she has included, barring some challenge of bias as specified above. And I again note that Meowy is explicitly and pointedly refusing to assume good faith and seems, based on the above statement, at least to me, to be accusing Pschemp of being part of some sort of conspiracy on the behalf of all the breeds, breed registries, etc., to create a false background for this breed. Again, the standards of verifiability in this case almost certainly do not include producing archaeological evidence to support the existence of the cat in early ages, particularly considering that sufficient evidence of that typewould probably be impossible to verifiably produce anyway. The reference above to cat with the striped tail is historical, and can reasonably be seen as sufficient, unless specific evidence is produced to counterindicate it. Also, the pronounced similarities of the Turkish Van and the Van cat breeds/types/whatever (body type, general hair color and type, etc.), is probably enough in and of itself to be seen as being as being at the very least sufficient evidence that there is a proximate mutual ancestor, or possibly one a descendant of the other. On the basis of that seemingly implicit but understandable assumption by the breeders and breed associations, it is reasonable to provide information linking the Turkish Van to the Van breed. At this point, Pschemp has met the requirements, so far as I can determine, of verifiability. Meowy's statement that the producers of the archaeological evidence were "unable" to provide government documentation seems to me to be unsupported by the evidence. The possibility exists that either they or the editors did not include that information, or that it was removed as irrelevant somewhere down the line. Unless I can see that directly contradictory evidence is supplied, we would have to assume that the publisher, which seems to be reputable, was acting reputably. It would again seem to imply some sort of collusion or conspiracy to imagine otherwise. I myself would love to see some documentation which indicates the genetic similarity and/or differences of the two cats for evidence, but for all I know it may not exist. The burden of proof now would seem to lie with Meowy to produce some creditable source which supports the position that the Turkish Van is not sufficiently closely genetically linked to the Van cat of Turkey for information on the relationship to the Van cat to be included. Until and unless such evidence is produced, I believe that we would have to, assuming good faith, accept that the existence of a genetic relationship between the Turkish Van and the Van cat is sufficiently well founded for at least some such information can justifiably be included. And I very much hope that the persistant unproven, speculative accusations regarding the charcter of the other side in this dispute, which at least border on personal attacks, cease, as repeated personal attacks are sufficient cause for the banning of a user. Badbilltucker 15:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
No genetic relationship between the Turkish Van and the Van Cat has been proved. In fact, the exact opposite is suggested from the physical evidence and textual historical evidence available. What seems to have happened is that back in 1955 a pair of anonymous cats (possibly with some Van Cat ancestry) was misidentified as being pure-bred Van Cats. The descendants of those cats are still being misrepresented as being Van Cats. The history cultural significance of the real Van Cat is being appropriated by breeders of the Turkish Van for their own ends: to give a longer, more glamorous, and more significant ancestry to the newly-established Turkish Van breed. Given that the real Van Cat is now an endangered breed in its homeland, this misinformation spread by Turkish Van breeders could have a significant negative impact on the chances of its long-term survival.
Readers of the earlier entries to this discussion page will note that Pschemp has said (quoting her own words) that she has "never claimed Turkish Vans are Van Kedis", and that the Van Kedisi is a "separate breed from the the Turkish Van". Following on from that, on the 8th October, I added to the article saying “that the Turkish Van actually differs in many aspects from its supposed ancestor, the Van Cat”. Pschemp did not have any objection to those words at the time (and how could she since they agreed with her own words), yet in December she chose to erase them. Why? Meowy 17:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I have also added a RfC in the History and Geography section because it is a concern for the factual basis for the history (not biology) of the Turkish Van that is at the core of the current disagreement. I hope that we can get some comments from historians and archaeologists on the matter. (I don't think that there is a restriction that says that a DfC should be only in one section, but if there is, then may I suggest that it is the RfC entry in the Maths, Science, and Technology section that should be erased.) Meowy 21:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
A genetic relationship is very clearly proved in the pedigree records of this breed. The original cats were not misidentified, they were given by Turkish people to the British ladies while they were in the employ of the Turkish government. And you are still accusing breeders of conspiring, which is quite tiresome. A source talking about all white cats only proves that that is what the Turkish people value, it doesn't disprove that the colored cats were there at all. No one else on this page agrees with you. pschemp | talk 23:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Pschemp continues to come up with wild statements like "Both colors live and have lived in the region for thousands of years, and share history. Period." Yet she has not produced a single source to prove these statements. She also has not been able to produce a quote from anywhere that mentions a breed of cats with "Turkish Van" colours living in the Lake Van region. I, on the other hand, have been able to post quotes that do mention the Van Cat and that explicitly say it is an all-white cat. If there are references anywhere to a breed of ring-tailed cats in the Lake Van region then give them to us.
I have also argued fairly clearly that the supposed archaeological evidence that Pschemp claimed exists cannot be credible (geographical distance of Lake Van from the lands of the Hittites, the fact that not a single Roman-period battlefield site in Armenia has been identified, far less excavated, etc.) Pschemp has not addressed these arguments, beyond her repeated mention of the Turkoman International article – an article that does not give its sources, and whose sources may have come from Turkish Van breeders, and which appeared in a publication of dubious value (quote: "content must be of Turkish orientation and positive in atmosphere. Destructive or critical articles about internal Turkish affairs are not encouraged").
Pschemp - if you want to go around making juvenile comments like "no one else on this page agrees with you" then at least check first. There have been three people commenting since the RfC was posted. One of them was finding offense in your use of the phrase "street cats", one was questioning the value of your Turcoman International source, and one didn't quite understand that there is a difference between a "species" and a "breed". The only person agreeing with you is Badbilltucker, who was here before the RfC was posted, and whose support seems to be based on his reading of Wikipedia procedures rather than providing additional material that would strengthen your position.
Readers should also look over all the previous postings on this discussion page. In them Pschemp is constantly belittling anyone who disagrees with her; where errors in the article have been pointed out she has said that they are unimportant; and she has expressed in both words and actions that she sees this wikipedia entry as her personal article. Meowy 17:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, no one else on this page does agree with you about your conspiracy theories. And that other guy up there thought things should stay the way they are too. If you want to sling the term juvenille around, you might consider your "Falsifying history for financial gain" remark. Enjoy your sour grapes. pschemp | talk 17:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Arbitrary break 4

Meowy said above, and I quote, "What seems to have happened is that back in 1955 a pair of anonymous cats (possibly with some Van Cat ancestry) was misidentified as being pure-bred Van Cats. The descendants of those cats are still being misrepresented as being Van Cats. The history cultural significance of the real Van Cat is being appropriated by breeders of the Turkish Van for their own ends: to give a longer, more glamorous, and more significant ancestry to the newly-established Turkish Van breed. Given that the real Van Cat is now an endangered breed in its homeland, this misinformation spread by Turkish Van breeders could have a significant negative impact on the chances of its long-term survival." These statements are explicitly weighed down in POV. Those animals were identified as being the progenitors of the Turkish Van breed, no explicit statement of their being "pure-bred" anything seems to have been implied at the time. This is, by the way, standard among cat breeds, as no one can magically determine the entire lineage of any single living animal, humans included. Nor are they being misrepresentated today as being Van Cats, which isn't an officially recognized breed name in the English language anyway, so there is no formal definition of what is and is not a Van Cat, but as Turkish Van cats, which is a specifically and formally identified breed. Also, Meowy indicates that his/her own position is at least in part due to an existing (if understandable) bias, which qualifies as POV by wikipedia guidelines. While I myself have sympathy for any endangered breed, such sympathy is explicitly POV and not something that an article in wikipedia should in any way be influenced by.

Nowhere in wikipedia do I see any explicit statement of what the Van Cat (with capitals) Meowy repeatedly refers to is. I am assuming that it is the Van Kedesi, but that is at best an assumption, as no explicit evidence has been put forward. I also find Meowy's insistence upon calling into question the editing practices of other parties to be pointless. We are seeking to establish articles based on published, verifiable sources, and calling into question the possible motives of others is completely off-topic, immaterial, and irrelevant. Also, with all due respect, Pschemp saying that she had seen the animals breed in Turkey is also irrelevant, unless she has published those statements elsewhere. Articles in wikipedia are not and should not be about the opinions or actions of editors, but about the available, published, verifiable information. Again, I regret to note that Meowy has yet to put forward any hard information, but instead seems to be reverting to innuendo, insinuation, and allegation, none of which are acceptable reasons to change content. This is not a Perry Mason story and I sincerely doubt we will have anyone involved in this discussion confess to wrongdoing on the stand, which would seem to me to be the only purpose which could be served by such allegations. Wikipedia is not, and cannot be about, trying to find "the truth" about anything on its own. To do so would require original research, which is actually explicitly prohibited. Meowy's repeated insistence upon referring to the "Van Cat" (with capitals), when in English there is no such thing as a formally recognized and named "Van Cat" seems to me to be the crux of this argument. Again, guidelines in wikipedia request that official names be used. Van Cat, in English, is not the official name of anything. The Van Kedisi, which is an officially recognized and named breed, does have its own article. And, while I acknowledge that the naming might be different in other languages and in different parts of the world, that is not a fundamental concern of the English-language wikipedia intended for English-language audiences.

I also just ran a google search on the phrase "Van Cat". The fifth-ranked site, which is also the first one not officially tied to Turkish Van cat groups, is All about Turkey, which itself explicitly states, and I quote the last sentence of the second paragraph, "Despite this all white, odd-eyed Van cat (the famous Kedi), all over the world the Van cat is recognized as an auburn white cat!" Even this site seems to be explicitly granting "Van cat" status to the Turkish Van. Until and unless we are presented with formal, verifiable references to substantiate Meowy's points, it seems to me that we would have to continue the existing status quo, with the separate pages for the Turkish Van, Van Kedesi, and a separate basically disambiguation page for Van cat, as that seems to be the only arrangement which reflects verifiable content. Having said that, I could see maybe including a statement something like "There is also another, roughly similar looking cat from the Van region, also called the Van cat, the Van Kedisi." Badbilltucker 15:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There used to be one, but it got twisted around and reworded so much by that I removed it. When the protection is lifted, I plan to readd it. pschemp | talk 15:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Erm, Badbilltucker - note the exclamation mark at the end of the sentence you quoted - i.e. "Despite this all white, odd-eyed Van cat (the famous Kedi), all over the world the Van cat is recognized as an auburn white cat!" The author is expressing surprise, and is actually objecting to the fact that, despite all the evidence, the "Turkish Van" is being claimed to be the Van cat by people outside Turkey! Meowy 17:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC) Further to your end suggestion, that is exactly what I think as well. However Pschemp will object, since she has already objected to any mention that Van Cats are not exactly "similar" to Turkish Vans, and she has erased the link that led to the Van Kedisi page. Whatever the outcome, it should also be stated somewhere on the page that the connection between the Turkish Van and the Van Cat is contentious. BTW, regarding the capitalisation - on all recent English literature I have seen, it is "Van Cat" and not "Van cat".Meowy 17:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Meowy's interpretation of the exclamation point is exactly that, an interpretation. I also note that Pschemp had herself included such a reference as we have all agreed to in a previous draft, seemingly invalidating your point regarding an objection. Lastly, Meowy's statement above that the two are "exactly similar" is incoherent and obviously wrong. They could either be "exactly the same" or "similar", not "exactly similar". And, on a related point, I have just now nominated the Van Kedisi page for inclusion on the front page "Did you know" section, under the current draft, and I hope that no one will endanger the article's prospects by doing any unnecessary editing to it until such time as the article either is displayed or is found to no longer be a candidate for inclusion in the "Did you know..." section. Badbilltucker 18:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Good work. pschemp | talk 19:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
An exclamation point is usually used after an interjection or exclamation to indicate strong feeling, A sentence ending in an exclamation mark is either an actual exclamation, a command, or is intended to express astonishment. Meowy 22:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
But to assume which specific use is intended is an explicit interpretation. Badbilltucker 17:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary break 5

I am no cat expert by any means. So I judge based only on what sources are presented. I'm not seeing the sources for Meowy's viewpoint on this matter. It seems clear to me that we should go with what is well sourced. If at some point some sources are presented for other views, then the article should discuss that there is some controversy, present the sources and let the reader decide. But we cannot and should not go with every version that someone puts forth, essentially unsourced. Support keeping the article statements essentially as they were before Meowy raised this. Further I would counsel Meowy that our work here goes best when we all remain civil. ++Lar: t/c 22:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

But Pschemp does not wish the article to admit that there is some controversy. She erased (after it had been there for several months) the sentence that said the Turkish Van differs in many aspects from its supposed ancestor, the Van Cat, and on the Van Kedisi page she has repeatedly erased the sentence "the connection between the Van Cat and the Turkish Van breed of cat is a subject of discussion and disagreement". That there is discussion and disagreement is self-evident. That there is a visual difference between the two types of cat is self-evident. That rather important "!" in the webpage cited by Badbilltucker is an example of that disagreement - in which the inhabitants of the Van region disagree with the claim that Turkish Vans are Van Cats. Are indigenous people to be disenfranchised from their own fauna because it is to the advantage of some cat breeders? Also, Badbilltucker has, for some unstated reason, on the Van Kedisi page, erased all the historical quotes that mentioned Van Cats as being white (and thus, by implication, not Turkish Vans).
The reason the quotes were erased was because (1) they are fundamentally redundant to the article and overemphasize the history of the cat to other aspects and (2) they themselves express a point of view, and it strikes me that it might be a "back-door" attempt at reinserting obvious POV. Also, in the sources I added, there are specific instances of photos of Van Kedisi which are not pure white, thus making it clear in the modern usage that it is an erroneous statement to indicate that they are pure white. However, now that the article has been removed from the Did You Know candidates page on the basis of the challenges to the text, I don't think anyone will have any real objection to their remaining, as the page is now no longer a candidate for any external recognition. Badbilltucker 15:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree. If the claims aren't verifiable, there is no verifiable controversy and they should not remain. ++Lar: t/c 17:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
In an objective sense, I agree with Lar. But, having reviewed the photo in question of what appears to be a multicolor van cat but is not explicitly and pointedly captioned in the article as being a Van Kedisi, I get the impression that a challenge could be raised that the photo is not that of a Van Kedisi, and that it is thus not eligible evidence. I would love it if I had more objective sources in a language I could understand about the subject, but I don't, and, on that basis, cannot state with any absolute certainty that the repeated insistence on the breed being officially "pure white" is a false one, at least in part because I can find no official reference to any sort of officially recognized breed to whose work I could refer. Badbilltucker 17:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)A source has now been added to the Van Kedisi page stating that the people of Turkey do not exclusively identify the pure-white cat as being the only Van Kedisi, and, on that basis, the content of the article has been changed to agree with the existing sources. Badbilltucker 20:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
That source, [[3]] which is without any references or even a author, should not be a citeable, verifiable source by anyone's standard. Meowy 01:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, you're right. Thank you for having pointed that out. It is still, however, a source regarding the subject, something which has been sorely lacking regarding the subject to date. Badbilltucker 01:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I still hope that some proper historians or archaeologists might come and give their expert opinion on the veracity of the archeological evidence cited in the Turcoman International article. If not - then keep that reference on the page and I will in a future date contact some of the published experts in the field and ask them to comment.Meowy 22:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
"That there is discussion and disagreement is self-evident."... well, in my view it is not self evident. That WE disagree does not mean that there is an actual recognised controversy. For that to be the case you need sources, citeable, verifiable sources (review WP:CITE and WP:Vif you have to), which in my view have not been supplied. I may have missed something, if you can point me to a diff where verifiable citable sources were added to the article that owuld be good. Otherwise I don't think you've made the case for controversy. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 01:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I understand and accept your point Lar. It's annoying to me to know that there are sources, in media produced in Turkey and in Van, that would clearly indicate that there is a lot of annoyance and offense felt locally in Van about the appropriation of the words "Van Cat" by breeders and owners of the "Turkish Vans", but which I cannot cite since I do not have access to them just now. Also, unfortunately, most of the expression of that offense is conveyed verbally, and is not written down. You can get some idea of it from the early contributions to this Talk page, and that significant "!".
The unverified "evidence" presented on Turkish Van websites about there being archaeological finds proving that Turkish Vans have been around for 1000s of years are just laughable nonsense to anyone who knows the archaeology and history of Armenia. But I know enough about that archeology and history of Armenia to also know that there will be no sources around to disprove such stuff. What academic would spend time dismissing it - it would, for them, be like a geographer spending time disproving statements that the earth is flat. It is unfortunate that there is no place in Wikipedia for commonsense to have some weight against unverified statements from vested interest groups. Meowy 01:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
On this webpage [[4]], there a clear differentiation made between "Turkish Vans" and Van Cats (Van Kedisi). The all-white cats are all described as "Turkish Vankedisi", and imported from Turkey. There are no imported cats listed with "Turkish Van" colours. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Meowy (talk • contribs) 01:58, 10 December 2006

(UTC).

True, but that page is unfortunately unsourced and unverifiable. Also, it does not provide a reason why that differentiation is made. You had said earlier that you regreted the lack of a citable source for your argument. It is possible that you could yourself create such a source (or request someone else create it), based on the information you have given above, by writing an article or asking someone to write an article for inclusion in a reputable magazine whose scope would include this subject. Such an article would certainly qualify as a source, were it to be published in a reputable magazine and provide verification of any claims it would make. Without some such verification, however universal the emotion you stated above is held, it cannot be included, as there is no published, verifiable source available (or cited) yet. Badbilltucker 02:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
And every webpage cited by Pschemp is also unsourced and unverifiable! And most are just recycling the same information - some with curious additions: for example, I found one that changed the reference to Turkish Van cats on Hittite jewelery to Turkish Van cats on Urartian stone reliefs (which is rather like changing Egyptians for Assyrians). BTW, that page [[5]] I found as a link in the [[6]] website that you, earlier, seemed to value. Meowy 02:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
While that may be true, the various breed clubs are generally accepted as a reliable source in and of themselves, and are as such not required to provide additional sources. Much the same as the Office of the White House is considered an acceptable source for the history of the Oval Office, the fact that the data is from them, who are counted as a reliable source, is in and of itself sufficient. I am not necessarily saying that I believe that they should be, but they are by and large the ones most likely to have the accurate information. Yes, as we all remember from Watergate and Monicagate, they can lie, and are occasionally found to do so, but it generally takes an incredible amount of effort to impugn what is generally considered a reliable source, and they will generally be considered to be one until and unless such evidence is forthcoming. Badbilltucker 14:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/u/r/Talk%7ETurkish_Van_29eb.html"