Talk:Iğdır Genocide Memorial and Museum

Title
The scare quotes and alleged MOS state using them should be “considered carefully”, not that they should never be used. It’s very acceptable to use them for something extremely WP:UNDUE. Here’s a source confirming it was built as a response to Armenian genocide recognition, and that the person who built it is a Grey Wolves member and genocide denier. Page 111 ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Buidhe I'll not revert you but can you explain in more detail the reason for your edit? I think my rationale is quite reasonable and in this case, it's appropriate. Please revert yourself. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Zani, I just think that the wording with "stated aim" is often a good way to handle cases where there is disagreement over what the actual aim is, or the actual aim is said to differ from the stated one. I think that the scare quotes and piping of "commemorates" makes it sound like WP is taking sides in a dispute, which WP is not supposed to do. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  10:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Scare quotes and the use of 'alleged' are not a good way to get across the point here, simply because they do not sound impartial. On 'careful consideration' there are much better ways of phrasing this information, including what I've suggested, which doesn't legitimise the claim in any way. I've made my point and I'm convinced that the previous wording was not compatible with the MOS. When reverting one needs not only to defend the previous version but also needs to establish why the current version is not an improvement, and I don't see any problems being identified with my wording here. GGT (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I removed repetitive explanation sentence and moved the third paragraph up to be the second one. This seems to reflect the order of events better, and fixes the issues of the purpose of the memorial being explained twice. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Buidhe I wanted to ask what you think of the purpose of the memorial technically being explained twice, and how for that reason the second and third paragraphs would be better off switched. Also, by only explaining the purpose once, we avoid putting anything undue in the first paragraph. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Original synthesis
Hello, I am a contributor to Wikipedia in French and I am trying to translate this article.

I noticed that the part following the fact that Minister of State Ramazan Mirzaoğlu claimed that Armenians killed almost 80,000 people in Iğdır between 1915 and 1920 is using primary sources (in order to prove that there wasn't 80000 Turks in the region at that time, I guess) : "According to the Russian census, the entire population of the Surmali district (which included Igdir) by the beginning of the 20th century was 89,055 people, of which Turks ('Tatars') were 46 percent. In the city of Igdir itself, Armenians accounted for 84% of the population."
 * References

(I believe it is probably a translation from the article in Armenian)

I think this part should be removed, and a secondary source found to replace it.

Please note that I'm not trying to imply that Mirzaoğlu is telling the truth in any way, but I also don't think it's the role of Wikipedia contributors to synthesise primary sources (see No original research), especially on potentially sensitive issues.

I just added a Template:Synthesis inline to this part (you can change it if there is a better template for it): I don't want to delete anything because I'm not a regular contributor to wp.en.

Regards, Şÿℵדαχ₮ɘɼɾ๏ʁ 14:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, this is a very valid point. I'll wait for some time for others to possibly come up with sources and will likewise have a look myself - if we can't get over the WP:SYNTH problem we should certainly remove that bit. GGT (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In my research, I noticed that a former version of the Iğdır section was much more develloped  (I hope a pro Armenian Genocide denial contributor didn't redact it...).
 * This article also had sections in the past, that made it easier to understand (it seems very strange to me that section headers can disappear in this way). That is what I did on the article in French, I believe it is what should be made here also.
 * I'll develop the article a bit more in French, then I could translate it into English to improve the current article (don't worry about the sources, I always try to find reliable references for anything I write on Wikipedia that is not trivial).
 * Regards Şÿℵדαχ₮ɘɼɾ๏ʁ 10:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * By the way, I am looking for the cited source of this :, i.e..
 * This text can be found on many websites, but none of them seems to be reliable enough to be used as a source. But Cafer A. Giyasi is the architect of the monument, so if he really wrote this article, it could be very interesting as a source.
 * Please notify me if someone is able to find a link to this paper. Regards, Şÿℵדαχ₮ɘɼɾ๏ʁ 11:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:PRIMARY:
 * “A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source…”
 * So there’s nothing wrong with just giving the population census. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't using a primary source. It's the way that the information from that primary source is synthesised with other information in this article i.e. demonstrating that the preceding statement is false. This isn't compatible with WP:SYNTH. Someone else writing somewhere reliable must have connected that statement to those census results before ("Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source.") Wikipedia isn't Snopes. GGT (talk) 23:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * How can something be synthesized when it's a separate sentence attributed to the census data of that time?
 * Mirzaoğlu makes his revisionist claim, stats don't show that reality. Stats are cited in the article as they're highly relevant to it, end of story. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope, not end of story. Mirzaoğlu's revisionist claim is likely undue in the article if it hasn't been deemed worthy of critical evaluation by any RS. The synthesis is obvious in that the census data isn't there for no reason, it's there specifically to refute Mirzaoğlu, and that is exactly what WP:SYNTH prohibits. There is a problem here and the solutions are either to remove the whole thing altogether or to find some sources that report about Mirzaoğlu and critique his statement. I'd prefer the latter which is why I'm giving this some time. GGT (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The census data should be in the article regardless because it directly relates to Igdir and to the revisionist claims of the Turkish government (not just Mirzaoğlu) that it was Armenians who committed a genocide against the Turks. It doesn't even make sense what you're suggesting now considering you wanted to keep the "stated aim" ("commemorate massacres and persecution committed by Armenians in Iğdır Province") not so recently, to which the census is highly relevant. We don't have to do mental gymnastics for something that is simply relevant to this article and hence should be kept. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to say... What do census data have to do with an article on a memorial/museum?
 * Nothing... except if they are used to try to disprove the statement cited above.
 * It is clear that theses are primary sources used to make an original synthesis, even if it is not said.
 * Also, these are not even from the same country (even if it is the same place), and were 20 years before, i.e. 1897, not « the beginning of the 20th century » as said in the article. Not to say that there could have been massive population movements at this time, due to the troubles in the region.
 * When trying to prove something on Wikipedia, the best secondary sources are needed, otherwise it's built on sand...
 * I'm not saying that these sources are easy to find, but it changes nothing to the fact that here, someone is trying to create a narrative that has no solid bases.
 * And again, I'm not in favour of the Turkish denial of the genocide, so please do not misinterpret my message. Regards, Şÿℵדαχ₮ɘɼɾ๏ʁ 18:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * To add another voice: The census data does not belong in this article. WP articles aren't a place to push theories or evaluate claims using primary sources. If you want to add a text to the effect that the population of the area at the time disputes someone's claim, you need to provide a source that MAKES THAT CLAIM. Adding "just facts" based on primary sources turns WP articles into academic battlegrounds, which is not the purpose of WP. I understand that it can be frustrating to see claims you feel are false go unchecked, but we need to insist of correct sources to avoid making WP pages into debate forums. WP:OR is the relevant policy. Ashmoo (talk) 12:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Noah's ark


Hello

I noticed the photo of Noah's Ark in the #Gallery section, but it doesn't seem to be there anymore. The photo is supposed to have been taken in 2009 on Commons, but looking at Google Street View, we can see that while it was still there in 2015 , it disappeared in 2022.

As there is no mention in the article or sources talking about this boat, its date of construction or removal, I have removed the image from the gallery.

Regards, Şÿℵדαχ₮ɘɼɾ๏ʁ 13:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)