Talk:Armenian question

Move request

Why do we have Jewish question, but Armenian Question? --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 15:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Largely because, like Eastern Question, there has really been only one Armenian Question; it's a proper name. If we need to do anything about this, it would be to move Jewish question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks as if "Jewish question" should be moved to "Jewish Question" for consistency among the three.--Parkwells (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Quite the contrary. Look at Google books n-grams. Armenian, Eastern, Jewish. The only one that comes remotely close to the "consistently capitalized in sources" criterion of MOS:CAPS is the Eastern Question. Dicklyon (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. I hate that this results in inconsistency, but that happens sometimes. --BDD (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Armenian Question → Armenian question – Caps are not necessary here; see previous discussion section for evidence from sources. Relisted. BDD (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Dicklyon (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support as nom, based on book evidence. Dicklyon (talk) 03:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment the opposite direction is proposed at Talk:Jewish question -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose

The google books Ngram results are interesting. But should they be taken at face value? Are they a blind capture of uses, without reference to reliability and reputation?

I think the real question is whether the name is a proper name (not to be confused with proper noun).

The Ngrams tell me that there is uncertainty among authors. (if only they are a reliable, authoritative, accessible encyclopedia!)

Usage may or may not favor one answer, but in building an authoritative reference work, we should make more effort to be present the correct information, where correct information (if defined and discernible) is discerned by using the most reliable sources. What is correct is not defined by prevalent usage. Prevalent usage of language is a fine academic topic, now readily measured computationally, but it should not be a constraint on the presentation of language in an encyclopedia.

Currently, the lede of this article clearly uses "Armenian Question" as a proper noun. If it is a proper noun, the Q should be capitalized. If it is not a proper noun, and language in the lede is misleading, needs to be changed, and has implications throughout the article.

My reading of the material and some external material is that it is very clear that "Armenian Question" is a proper noun. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Then why don't you go through the books with previews and tell us which ones you think are more reliable? I find 4 of 9 on the first page capitalize it, and 5 of 9 use lower case. Keep in mind the test suggested as MOS:CAPS: "words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia." Personally, I don't see how it can be a proper name. What does it name? Who named it? Dicklyon (talk) 03:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Reliability of books is a tough question. I would like to hear from others on this. I would like to most heavily weight the *most* reliable sources, which these are I don't know, but it is probably not a single author book. By default, I look first at the references supporting the lede. The main question, do we agree, is whether "Armenian Question" is a proper name?

You don't see how it can be a proper name? I'm surprised that you can be so sure. The distinction, as described at Proper_name#Capitalization_and_proper_names, is highly subjective. When does the description "main building" become a proper noun, "Main Building". Without doubt, it happens. It is a transition, perhaps defined as when the "Main Building" is no longer the main building. Looking at historical sources can easily completely miss the point. It may be best to look at the most current most reliable source.

I'm thinking that the answer should be found in a scholarly peer reviewed review article on the subject. "What does it name?" is the central question. (if this is ambiguous, does this not mean that the article needs a more descriptive title?). If it names something specific, I think it is a common name. If it describes any question posed in Armenian, it is not a proper name.

Your last question I think is unimportant. Not being able to find who did the naming doesn't interfere with it being a proper name. Current usage, not historical usage, defines a proper name. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

There are few scholarly papers, as far as I can tell, to consult on this. But lots of books. Lots of 21st century books, even, more than half of which use lowercase. Here are some (9 of 10 use lowercase on this page, though your results may vary, as hits are dynamic). Dicklyon (talk) 05:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose this move, as it is a proper noun. DeistCosmos (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Support—obviously. Someone put me right, please: is there more than one "Armenian question"? Is there some reason it needs vanity capitalisation? Perhaps a few journalists and scholars, even activists, have decided a little boosterism is in their interests, but if more than half of the sources downcase, as MOSCAPS suggests should be done, then it's a no-brainer. Tony (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• Relisting comment If it affects anyone's decision, Jewish question is remaining as such following a no consensus outcome. --BDD (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Indeed. We certainly don't want an inconsistent approach, and as Dicklyon points out, scholarly books provide many examples of where boosterism is dispensed with in the name of serious discussion. Tony (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

England's confidential archives are made public

England's political archives about Turkey between 1841 and 1957 are made public, though the files about the years between 1918 and 1939 are destroyed. The archive "FO 424_107.pdf" possibly has new information about the subject. I am not a historian, so I won't edit the article page. --TaigaShinyouju (talk) 11:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 18 May 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 07:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Armenian Question → Armenian question – More often than not this term is NOT capitalized in printed sources. That's the case if you look for naive results[1] as well as if you filter for use in a sentence.[2] You get similar results looking at Google Scholar: sometimes capped but not consistently so. WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS require consistent capitalization. As noted above this would also be consistent with Jewish question. (t · c) buidhe 18:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. What I would say is that given the imprecision of matching ngram with WP:RS and given how close the outputs are (especially the first, particularly in recent years) the best that could be said that those results are inconclusive. I’ve just randomly looked at some higher quality RS — e.g. Laderman, Charlie (2016). "Sharing the Burden? The American Solution to the Armenian Question, 1918-1920". Diplomatic History. 40 (4): 664–694. doi:10.1093/dh/dhv036., or Dadrian, Vahakn N. (2004). "The Armenian Genocide: An Interpretation". In Winter, Jay (ed.). America and the Armenian Genocide of 1915. Cambridge University Press. pp. 52–102. ISBN 978-1-139-45018-8. where upper case is used in the text of both — and I get the impression that Q is more common than q. Not a systematic search - but just saying. DeCausa (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support per our guidance how to decide, in MOS:CAPS. Another look at ngrams reveals a small number of contexts where caps are pretty common, which correspond to oft-cited titles in Title Case, while most contexts make it clear that lowercase dominates. Dicklyon (talk) 01:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support per our guidance and the evidence provided by the nom an Dicklyon. It is not consistently capitalised in sources. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.