Now we have an article called "Turkish atrocities against Kurds" which consists of a random selection of cut and pasted articles from other sources. It exceeds 35 K and the heading says "Notes for an article." Wikipedia is not a place to stick random notes, newspaper articles or whatnot. I believe this can be an article. It can even be an NPOV article (though it isn't now, because apart from political rhetoric, the article barely documents the atrocities it claims to describe). Can we at least formulate a policy on this type of behavior.
Danny
Danny complined: Now we have an article called "Turkish atrocities against Kurds" which consists of a random selection of cut and pasted articles from other sources. It exceeds 35 K and the heading says "Notes for an article." Wikipedia is not a place to stick random notes, newspaper articles or whatnot. I believe this can be an article. It can even be an NPOV article (though it isn't now, because apart from political rhetoric, the article barely documents the atrocities it claims to describe). Can we at least formulate a policy on this type of behavior.
Steve: Nonsense! In fact we should have *note pages* in addition to talk pages! Great idea Danny, Im glad you came up with it. Reason? Im not in the mood to add material and have it mercillessly chopped up by a bunch of bored piranhas... Im cooking my meal before I serve it. First the ingredients! Be well, Dan. _~~~
It sounds like a bad idea to me. If people want to take notes, couldn't they use a page in the user space, or on meta, or something like that?
--Jimbo
Although I agree that the subject deserves an article, any article with this title cannot be NPOV. Zoe daniwo59@aol.com wrote:Now we have an article called "Turkish atrocities against Kurds" which consists of a random selection of cut and pasted articles from other sources. It exceeds 35 K and the heading says "Notes for an article." Wikipedia is not a place to stick random notes, newspaper articles or whatnot. I believe this can be an article. It can even be an NPOV article (though it isn't now, because apart from political rhetoric, the article barely documents the atrocities it claims to describe). Can we at least formulate a policy on this type of behavior.
Danny
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
Zoe: "Although I agree that the subject deserves an article, any article with this title cannot be NPOV."
Your statements although brief, contain usually at least one assumption. 1. That the subject being 'deserving' of an article is even close to being in question, and that 2. such a thing cannot be NPOV, simply because its controversial. It is what it is. Turks in the late 90s killed far more Kurds than the Serb "Christians" were killing Croat Muslims. The US sanctioned, supported, and suppressed it. It further has relevance because the US reportedly was in the process of selling out the Kurds to Turkey again, striking a deal to allow Turkey dominion over certain sections in Northern Iraq that border Turkey.
As for Danny's assertion, which Jim seconded, that this is no place for notes, I don't see how some structured notes are any different than an article in formation. There are two ways of sculpting something: By building up, (like clay) or breaking down (like chipping a marble). Im speaking as an artist, of course, but the analogy is valid, I think. Of course, provided work gets done to article-ize the page. Hence, time, which I did not have in abundance, while I was taking notes. Not that I dont understand the usual concerns.