Talk:Van Kedisi
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. |
 |
This article is supported by the Cats WikiProject.
This project provides a central approach to Cat-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments | |
Contents |
[edit] Comments
Does anyone have access to the account that the 17th century Ottoman traveler Evliya Çelebi wrote about Van? His descriptions are normally so comprehensive that a mention of Van Cats is possible in his account of Van.
[edit] Van Cat
The literal translation of the Turkish "Van Kedisi" is "Van Cat". While Turkish Van breeders may not like its use because it infringes on what they seem to think is their ownership of the the phrase "Van Cat", this is the English Wikipedia and it is not appropriate to refer to the Van Cat primarily as a Van Kedisi. Also, the oldest references to Van Cats are in Armenian sources, and they would call the cat in question a "Van'a Gadu": for this reason the ethnically and historically neutral "Van Cat" should be the one to use. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Meowy (talk • contribs) 21:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC).
-
- The breed is, as indicated in the article, all but unknown outside of Turkey. On that basis, it has never had a name in the English language that has been used commonly and frequently enough to qualify as a common name. Also, the name Turkish Van is a commonly and frequently used name, and is also an officially recognized name by the various interested official organizations. For all its age and history, the Van Kedisi has never been common enough in the English language world to ever have a "common" name. On that basis, and given the existing formally recognized name of the Turkish Van which is commonly used by everyone in the cat field, breeders and others, it seems to me to be a fair and reasonable alternative to use the one name by which the Van Kedisi is most commonly known, which is the name it is given in just about the only country on the planet in which it exists. And I would request that the above editor cease the seemingly endless personal attacks on people who have a legitimate disagreement with them. Badbilltucker 16:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Please cease your unwarrented personal attacks on me on this page. The breed is not unknown outside Turkey - it has been mentioned by dozens of foreign writers, called a "Van cat" in English and by the equivalent in other tongues, and often accompanied with the epithet "famous" or "celebrated". It is also called a Van Cat in official publications written in English and published in Turkey. The breed also does not yet exist as a scientifically defined breed, so it does not have an officially recognised name. Van Kedisi is the colloquial name given to it by Turkish speakers - Kurdish and Armenian speakers give it the exact equivalent name but in their own tongue. This is English Wikipedia, not Turkish, or Kurdish, or Armenian - so the English "Van Cat" is appropriate. Meowy 00:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Withdrawl of nomination for front page "Did You Know....?"
In light of recent changes, including additions of quotations which frankly do not add to the quality of the article, and detract in some degree from the appearance of it, and a variety of unsourced statements, I have formally requested that the nomination for the front page Did You Know section be withdrawn. Badbilltucker 15:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Turkish people make no differentiation among pure white and white and colored Van Kedisi
This site [1] explicitly states that the Turkish people do not differentiate between pure white Van Kedisi and white with colored Van Kedisi. On the basis of this verifiable information, I request that the repeated insistance that the Van Kedisi is pure white ends. Badbilltucker 18:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- What "verifiable information"? The page does not provide any sources or citations, it doesn't even have an author! And, though it is by the way since the page is of such low quality, it actually says that they do differentiate between them. Meowy 00:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] POV
Article employs weasel words such as "leaves much to be desired" for the breeding facility, with no specific indication of what specific deficiencies can be found there. Also, article has in earlier drafts made a specific statement that the coloring of the animal is exclusively pure-white, which has, in a later draft, been specifically denied with a source cited. Badbilltucker 19:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
In the words of the article [[2]] about the center: "it doesn't appear all that scientific and indeed seems more like a large breeding facility. .... There were no cat toys in either room but a pair of upholstered armchairs sat shredded and covered in white hairs. "leaves much to be desired" is an accurate summary. Meowy 00:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- It is inherently prejudicial summary of information, and, as such, conveys to any reader that a judgement on the facilities, without any inherent understanding of the reasons behind such activity (if any), being considered. The language is clearly coming to a conclusion, in this case, based on insufficient evidende. Again, as I was the one who introduced the article as a reference, there is no way that I personally could force myself to use the language used by you in "summarizing" the situation. And please note I was speaking about the article, not about you. There is a difference between criticizing the content of an article and casting aspersions on the motivations of other editors which you seemingly have yet to fully comprehend. I would strongly suggest you read the content of the piece I had cited above, which specifically indicates that the language used can be seen as making a conclusion based on insufficient evidence, which is exactly what was done here. Until and unless you can cite clear specific instances as to why and how such items could be included, and should be included, you are drawing a conclusion, and wikipedia articles are about presenting information without interpretation or conclusion. Badbilltucker 00:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
And again, cease your personal attacks delivered in the form of phrases like "weasel words". Meowy 00:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- I would strongly suggest you actually read the document referenced before again indulging in such poorly thought through accusations as the one above. I was discussing the content of the article. You are the one who seems to think that every statement made against the content you introduce is in some way an attack upon you personally. This is, and has always been to me, about the content of the articles, not individual "conclusions" about the motivations of other editors. Please remember that I was the one who added the current details, and all the information about the characteristics of the animal, and that nominated the draft for being displayed on the main page, and that you were the one who insisted in overstressing the historical quotations, which could have in and of itself disqualified it for inclusion on the front page. Please address the issues of content. Badbilltucker 01:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Weasel Words
"This statement "(for reasons that are known but cannot be written about here because the research has not been published yet)" from the article clearly has no place in the article. All entries in wikipedia are intended to be constructed so that they read like any other encyclopedia. No other encyclopedia would accept such phrasing. Also, the phrase itself, by effectively saying "I know something but can't prove it", probably qualifies as weasel words, as defined in the page linked to. Similarly, the statement in the second paragraph "(and may be related to)" may qualify under the same criterion. The phrase "seems to be ineffective" is once again employing weasel words, particularly as no evidence is given or cited to refer to whether or not the numbers have actually increased or not since the opening of the Van Cat House. In the history section, the italicized formatting of the source citation is probably misused. If the statements in the first paragraph of the "Current status" section are verified in one of the sources you introduced, then they should be footnoted and the specific source refered to cited. That was what the Citation needed tags you removed were referring to. Also, I would strongly suggest reinserting the red-link to either Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi or Van 100th Year University, or both, for two reasons. One, if anyone creates such a page, the red-link will automatically turn into a blue link linking to the new page. Also, the more times a non-existent page is linked to, the greater the likelihood that someone will create a page there. There in fact exists a group whose sole purpose in wikipedia is to create pages that existing red links lead to. Lastly, the parenthetical source at the end of the second paragraph of "Current Status" looks almost amateurish, and definitely detracts from the quality of the article. Please read Wikipedia:Citing sources for the correct ways to cite sources in a wikipedia article. Badbilltucker 19:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
