This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Van Province article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Van Province be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.

Wikipedians in Turkey may be able to help!

The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Kurdistan Mid‑importance

	Kurdistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kurdistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Kurdistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KurdistanWikipedia:WikiProject KurdistanTemplate:WikiProject KurdistanKurdistan articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Armenia Mid‑importance

	Van Province is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Turkey Mid‑importance

	Turkey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comments

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)[reply]

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). Khoi khoi 22:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Khoi khoi 04:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Protected

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

File:Latrans-Turkey location Van.svg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Latrans-Turkey location Van.svg, 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)[reply]

Alternative names

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)[reply]

City and Province

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)[reply]

Yes Armenian Pictures /POV/ No Turkish Pictures

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)[reply]

I think POV tag is not necessary. You can provide non-Armenian images. Takabeg (talk) 00:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Van < Bianili

Bianili = Urartu Böri (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV

This page is not WP:NPOV:

Haykaberd??? Why not Çavuştepe?
This images only Armenian culture

--Kmoksy (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

@Biainili: Can you explain what's vandalism about this edit? [1] --Semsûrî (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a reliable source. --Biainili (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reference for how the Kurdish name is spelled. Why is it not reliable? --Semsûrî (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Armenian name

Why is the Armenian name of the town included? These have been Turkish and Kurdish lands for a thousand years. Articles on Greek islands that were Turkish territory a hundred years ago are not allowing Turkish names to be included! Double standards seem to be at play. Someone explain it logically please. Dominator1071 (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't duplicate comments like this on multiple pages (and Van Province is not a "town"). But since you are doing this, I will copy my answer from Talk:Van, Turkey#Armenian name:

As a general rule, Ottoman names should be given for former parts of the Ottoman Empire now part of Greece, as for example in Chania, Crete, Lesbos, Giannitsa, etc.

If you could point out Greek places where the Ottoman place name is "not allowed to be included", please let me know.

Similarly, areas which have had important Armenian populations in the past should include the Armenian name. --Macrakis (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar improvements

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)[reply]

Van

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

==

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)[reply]