Jump to content

Talk:Witnesses and testimonies of the Armenian genocide

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Related to this discussion page

[edit]

This conversation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.133.104.95 (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganization

[edit]

Today, I cleaned up the Coan article (surprisingly on DYK today) somewhat to add historical context and bring it up to wikipedia standards, especially adding wikilinks to the Ottoman breakup context. Months ago, I did something similar (or a mirror image) to the George White article and links within it. However, I don't have time to do the further editing needed on this or lots of other Armenian genocide related articles. Frankly, while this table format is useful, I think a first step might be to reorganize it, perhaps splitting it into several tables by nationality or work context. Thus, I would group Coan with other missionary witnesses like Grace Knapp, Tacy Atkinson, the Usshers, Earnest Yarrow, Ruth Parmalee, Mary Louise Graffham and George White, rather than interspersing diplomats and whistleblowing(?) Turks.Jweaver28 (talk) 13:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jweaver28 First off, I would like to thank you for the wonderful copy-edits you did on the Coan article. Much appreciated. As for this article, I was really hoping someone can help me shorten the article as much as possible while retaining all the quotes and biographical information. Is there a way to shorten the mass amount of references in the Reference section? Also, I'm in support of sorting the witnesses in terms of nationalist as well, as long as it doesn't make it longer. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how it's done, but I've seen pages with graphics indicating further material available on wikiquotes. If you figure out how to do it, I'd love to learn how, since I know of a few other articles with much worse problems in that respect. As for sorting by nationalities or professions, I don't think that will make it much longer, since some of the repetitive material may be obvious enough to be cut. Good luck with it. I know sometimes too much information can make peoples' eyes glaze over, thus defeating the purpose.Jweaver28 (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propongo que se incorpore a Bruno Eckart, cuyo pequeño libro Mis Vivencia en Urfa se publicó en alemán en 1919. B Eckart fue misionero, y su hermano, agente consular, fue acusado de aprovecharse de la situación de los deportados para enriquecerse. El libro sólo existe en alemán (no se re-editó) y en armenio; V dadrian lo cita en su libro Historia del Genocidio Armenio.

Removal of flags

[edit]

This is unacceptable. The Manual of Style specifically makes clear in its appropiate uses that:

  • Icons may be helpful in certain situations:
  • Repeated use of an icon in a table or infobox. This should only be done if the icon has been used previously with an explanation of its purpose.
  • They are useful in articles about international sporting events, to show the representative nationality of players (which may differ from their legal nationality). Example: List of WPA World Nine-ball Champions.

The explanation is that the witnesses origins/ethnic origins are important for the article, for obvious reasons (the witnesses are from all around the world, and not one nation), as you should know. It would be a disservice (to the victims and their descendants all around the world) to remove this clearly important information from the article. --92slim (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Example: List of Righteous Among the Nations by country - this is an article of a similar topic that can be taken as a reference. --92slim (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that article, the flag icon is being used to represent the nation; here we're discussing individuals. These individuals are not acting as representatives of any particular nationality, so this article does not benefit from use of the icons in addition to the text identifying their nationality (which I'm not proposing we remove). Furthermore, the flags you are using are in some cases not actually representative of the nationalities of the individuals involved. Finally, your reversion also removed other changes, particularly correction of overlinking and potentially confusing links. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they do represent their particular nationality, legally speaking. Your argument does not hold in this case. Sorry. --92slim (talk) 08:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, not like an international sportsperson does. If Michael Phelps takes a gold medal at the Olympics, we would say the US won gold, because he is representing that country in that situation; while we can say that Walter M. Geddes is American, he is not representing the US in the same way. Thus, we acknowledge his nationality with text, but do not include a flag. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh interesting. Because that's not a valid argument: "They do represent their country, but not with flags." May I remind you that MOS is a 'guideline' of Wikipedia and not policy. Let's act accordingly about it. --92slim (talk) 04:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I said. They are a certain nationality; they do not represent a certain nationality. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They do represent their nationality, just as any other person represents their own nationality, legally speaking. The problem is in the style it's presented. If the style is indeed off, then I have no objections. Unfortunately I don't see it as being the case, although the topic does not exactly warrant further discussion - as long as their nationality is clearly shown. --92slim (talk) 06:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the confusion arises because in today's world, we talk of nation states, not empires. A subject of an empire did represent the empire, unlike what we understand today - this applies to the topic at hand. --92slim (talk) 06:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to the reasons that you have left in the history of the article for the removal of flags, I will explain them to you individually:

  • WP:MOS/ICONS

See first point: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Appropriate_use - Valid use: Repeated use of an icon in a table or infobox, so not valid to use for removing them

  • WP:MOS/LINKING

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Overlinking - unrelated to the topic, so not valid either

  • WP:EASTEREGG

Wikipedia:Piped link - unrelated to the topic so the flags can be added back with no objections. --92slim (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That usage of flag icons does not meet MOS:FLAG, as explained above. The repeated linking of nationalities, and the linking of the same word to different pages, does not meet the linking guidelines - your assertion that these are "unrelated" is incorrect given that you have restored the problematic links. "the flags can be added back with no objections" is not true. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Sorry, might have confused the term icons with flags per the style guidelines. The linking issue is unrelated to the topic of flags, this is what was meant from the beginning; sorry for the inconvenience caused. --92slim (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations

[edit]

Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) Why is the lengthy quote tag added? These quotes are not part of a prose article. An article with a table that is dedicated to testimonies and eye-witness accounts should at least have quotes specifying the testimony at hand. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because, given the length of the article, there is a high proportion of quotes. The point of an encyclopedia article is not to provide that sort of primary-source material directly, but rather to provide context and interpretation to it. Thus, while a limited number of quotes is appropriate, we should not dedicate so much space to quotations, even within a table format. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning is that this article is specifically geared to provide testimony. That's is what the readership would look for when they stumble upon an article of witnesses and testimonies of a certain event. If it were any other article, I would agree with you. But these quotations is quintessential to present what that testimony is exactly. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I read it, this article is here to present the topic of witness and testimonies of the Armenian Genocide. The testimonies themselves are best provided by another project. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article is all about the quotes. I'm sorry, but you have absolutely no reason to put unrelated tags - I'm guessing you meant WikiQuotes. It is possible to move the information there, instead of keeping it in bulk here. But the tag was invalid without providing the host, which I understand is in the interest of the project. We can port it there, after the appropiate articles are made there. Until then, we shall keep it here when the information is not included elsewhere in detail, neither the authors nor the content, and for a lack of a better Wikiquote article. --92slim (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the information is included elsewhere or not does not impact on whether it is appropriate for Wikipedia. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That still doesn't explain why there is a need to remove the information without providing a host, if any. It's a fallacy because here needs to be a host to move the information to. Otherwise, anyone can delete any article forever for no good reason, and request on the talk page to move it elsewhere. --92slim (talk) 04:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We can and do delete articles that do not fall within our mandate without them existing elsewhere; it's a fallacy to suggest that we are obliged to be or provide a host for any and all content. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your information. Nevertheless, that doesn't explain about the tags to the article. We could delete the whole of Wikipedia itself, according to the pillars (no, it's not sarcasm). Also, we are obliged to provide a host, because otherwise removing properly sourced information without an appropiate reason would be classed as vandalism, unless the article itself is deleted. Take into account this article is about human history (historical events, in which exact paraphrasing plays a relevant role), not about ever-changing events. --92slim (talk) 06:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Key phrase: "without an appropriate reason". We are not obliged to host everything than could be properly sourced. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The goal of any type of encyclopedias is to host content. There is no appropiate reason to add any kind of content whatsoever, but there must be one to remove information. The point is that removing content is not allowed without proper reasoning, from which the tag is excluded, and a suggestion to move quotes is simply not a good reason to remove content (albeit in this case it's possible to move some quotes as per WP:LONGQUOTE, even though it's currently just an essay), or to add unrelated tags. If you have a suggestion on how to write this article, please outline the methods here. --92slim (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to: Wikipedia:Quotations#Overusing_quotations

Overuse happens when: 

   a quotation is visually on the page, but its relevance is not explained anywhere:

       a quotation is used without pertinence

   Quotes are used to explain a point that can also be paraphrased. The quotes dominate the article

Neither is the case. --92slim (talk) 06:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See the following section, WP:LONGQUOTE. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That confirms what I have pointed out. 1) "Using too many quotes is incompatible with the encyclopedic writing style." - As I have pointed out, this is a matter of style, not content. Content comes first, always, not style. 2) "Quotations that can't be justified for use in an article directly may be placed in Wikiquote and a Wikiquote template put on the article to inform readers that there are relevant quotations regarding the subject." - therefore my suggestion to move some of them to WikiQuote has some ground, by the link provided - to note, the article contains only quotes related to the topic of the article, sufficient to not warrant an information removal or tags. Note the language used in the quoting guideline: "Quotations that can't be justified for use in an article directly may be placed" Quotations that can't be justified may be placed - refers to the quotes that can't be justified, which are actually none. As a matter of fact, style comes after content per Wikipedia rules, otherwise it would be policy, and not just a guideline. --92slim (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing: WP:LONGQUOTE is neither policy nor a guideline. Sorry to burst your bubble. I suggest you read this: Wikipedia:Quotations#Recommended_use_of_quotations - referring to the first point, controversial topics do warrant an extensive usage of quotations - now, this is the Wikipedia guideline we should follow as per Wikipedia:CONT (the topic "Armenian Genocide" is in the History section of the list). --92slim (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...you do realize that LONGQUOTE is part of Wikipedia:Quotations, which you have cited several times? Beyond that, your argument does not make sense. Wikipedia:Quotations#Recommended_use_of_quotations relates to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, not to the type of usage in this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant is that neither the Manual of Style nor WP:QUOTATIONS warrant removal of information, whether intentioned or not. I understand that guidelines and essays are on a similar level of importance, which I value as long as the information stays verbatim. PS: The argument does make sense. The type of usage is quote attribution to the claims of importance that the cited people have been given. --92slim (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. "quot[ing] attribution to the claims of importance that the cited people have been given" refers to examples like this one: "On the other hand, German historian Hilmar Kaiser says: "And even if you're a Turkish nationalist, that doesn't make you a killer. There were people who were famous Turkish nationalists like Halide Edip"" - we are attributing a claim of Edip's importance to Kaiser. Quoting the cited people themselves is not that type of usage. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Witnesses and testimonies of the Armenian Genocide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A 1913-14 witness

[edit]

The newspaper "Mècheroutiette : constitutionnel ottoman. Organe du Parti Ottoman ...", published in Paris in early 20th c. is full of news about the Ottoman Empire of that period. I found this about persecutions of Armenians: "Des bandes de jeunes musulmans, soudoyes par le comite parcourent la nuit les quartiers armeniens de Constantinople, marquant en noir ou en rouge maisons, ecoles et eglises armeniennes, gravant sur les portes des paroles insultantes, des menaces de mort". Mècheroutiette, January 1914, p. 45

The digitized archive is searchable and the interested may find more relevant material.

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Witnesses and testimonies of the Armenian Genocide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Witnesses and testimonies of the Armenian Genocide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Armenian Genocide which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Witnesses_and_testimonies_of_the_Armenian_genocide&oldid=1216452808"