From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Van Province article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

Kurdistan Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Kurdistan, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Kurdistan-related topics. Please visit the project page if you would like to participate. Happy editing! 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. Turkey Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the the participants page if you would like to get involved. Happy editing! 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. edit · history · watch · refresh To-do list for Van Province: No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category

	It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in Turkey may be able to help!
	The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Contents 1 Comments 1.1 A longing look back into the pages of history 1.2 Primary sources 1.3 Protected

[edit] Comments

[edit] A longing look back into the pages of history

Another former armenian territory.

or a Russian territory? deniz^T_C 00:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Primary sources

According to WP policy, the interpretation of primary sources such as the Gertrude Bell diaries and old newspapers is considered original research. Though it is sometims useful to quote such sources, normally their interpretation should be left to professional scholars. WP then reports on their work (secondary sources). Khoikhoi 22:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That disqualifies a lot of references used in the articles, then. Great Fire of Smyrna will need a major rewrite, for instance. I think that link might qualify as a secondary reference. deniz^T_C 00:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, see Talk:Great Fire of Smyrna#What has happened to this article. The diary is a primary source as well. Khoikhoi 01:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It can be classified as a secondary source, since it was done by some library of a university, unrelated to the person, and I don't think that person, or her family made them collect her diary and letters. It is a research. It should qualify as a secondary source. Also I don't quite get what you mean (smyrna), and how it is related to primary source discussion. What Fadix mentions is already in the article, should it not be, because it is primary source? deniz^T_C 02:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, a primary source (such as a diary) remains a primary source even if it is published by someone (anyone). --Macrakis 15:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them." and "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." First, the version that was reverted was not an interpretation, it was a summarization. Second, there were TWO sources provided as WP dictates And last, the version that is current does not provide a source at all. --Oguz1 14:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I added one more source, which makes 3 completely different and unrelated sources, one of which is an analysis and not an direct report or a diary or anything else mentioned in WP:NOR. Combined with the other sources, it meets and exceeds the NOR requirements, and are NPOV US and UK sources. They in fact have anti-Turkish overtones (in my opinion). Please read the articles before you automatically assume bad faith edit on my part, and do a blind revert. I also added other "benign" historical info. --Oguz1 15:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but these sources are still not reliable. A girl's diary is especially going to be biased; it would be best if you could provide third-party sources instead. Khoikhoi 04:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing out that Brittanica is not reliable. deniz^T_C 05:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Diaries are indeed sources of valuable information and can be used to cite specific facts the author witnessed on the ground ; but they cannot be used as a source for the conclusions or the description of the large-scale events that can only be done in the hindsight and by a person with a necessary background. --Irpen 06:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I did what you asked and checked the talk page, I don't see why you removed all those referenced materials. Regarding the diary, it was an external link. Please revert. deniz^T_C 06:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The sources being used are old newspaper articles from 1915. Clearly primary sources contemporary to the events in question. --Irpen 09:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see Oguz1's comments above deniz^T_C 09:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

What a pointless dispute! That diary entry has absolutely no relevance to a general article on Van Province, and should be removeed for that reason. But, typical of Wikipedia, instead of examining the obvious, things get bogged down on some silly dispute over "primary sources". It could be argued that a published diary, compiled by a third party after the diarist's death, is not really a "primary source", and, anyway, since it is there as an external link, it doesn't really count as a "primary source". But, regardless of that, there is no reason for the link to be there at all because it is not relevant to the article. Why is it not tthat that is being talked about? (BTW, Koikhoi, to dismiss the works of Gertrude Bell as "a girl's diary" displays ignorance). Meowy 16:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

This page is protected because of the recent edit dispute. --WinHunter ^(talk) 04:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)