Talk:Van Province

message: Another former armenian territory.
or a Russian territory? denizTC 00:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A longing look back into the pages of history

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. denizTC 00:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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? denizTC 02:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text:  "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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  Thanks for clearing out that Brittanica is not reliable. denizTC 05:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 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. denizTC 06:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Please see Oguz1's comments above denizTC 09:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Primary sources 

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

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 
;What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Latrans-Turkey location Van.svg Nominated for Deletion

message: This article is related with a province (Van Province) not with a city (Van). So we mustn't add alternative names of the city of Van. We can add alternative names of the province of Van with reliable sources. Takabeg (talk) 07:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative names

message: I see that historical names have been added to Van Province; I am sure in good faith. However the historical names are irrevelant. Van Province is named after the capital city (Van) of the province. So there are two articles in Wikipedia for Van and Van Province. But it can be seen that while the first refers to a single city, the second refers to a province which includes the rural area in addition to many settlements including the capital of the province. The city is an ancient city with many names. But the province is a relatively recent administrative unit. So while city has historical names , the province doesn't have a historical name. Now I am going to delete the extra and irrevelant names. But please note that the historical names are kept in the articles about Van city. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  City and Province 

message: Why only Armenian pictures on the section Gallery? The Van Province is Turkey's province. Armenian, Armenian, Armenian, Armenian. Why no Turkish pictures. Not neutrality --Kmoksy 00:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think POV tag is not necessary. You can provide non-Armenian images. Takabeg (talk) 00:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes Armenian Pictures /POV/ No Turkish Pictures 

message: Bianili = Urartu  Böri (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Van < Bianili 

message: This page is not WP:NPOV:
* Haykaberd??? Why not Çavuştepe?
* This images only Armenian culture
--Kmoksy (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:NPOV  

message: Can you explain what's vandalism about this edit?  --Semsûrî (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: And the Armenian text should be the equivalence of 'Van Province' not merely 'Van' and we need a reference for it. --Semsûrî (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: The article is in need of grammatical corrections. I suggest other editors contribute in a constructive manner too. 786wave (talk) 09:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar improvements 

message: Why  an armenian editing a turkish province whic is my native city???? Frlaom (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Van 

message: This article is currently being brigaded by the reddit subreddit /r/Turkey, influenced by Turkish nationalism and Armenian Genocide denial.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A06:4000:1E:0:1477:5E26:7FC6:B55 (talk) 15:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: ==