Talk:Ahmet Rüstem Bey

@Srnec:

Untitled

Re: this edit

• 1. Many editors would prefer to have the exact page cited. While the article itself has nine pages, only some of them (generally pages 102-103) talk about Ahmet Rustem. When making a request to Chinese Wikipedia editors to have the Kweilin incident translated they told me that specifying a "range" of pages was not sufficient and that they wanted the exact page numbers which support the content. It might work to consolidate the citation and to state that pages 102-103, for example, support the content.
• 2. I strongly prefer linking to the specific Google Books pages as it helps with accountability. The majority of readers aren't inclined to go hunt down the book/find the book themselves and we need to make it easier for people to find/read the content.
• 3. As for the title Pasha it seems like https://www.msz.gov.pl/en/p/stambul_tr_k_en/c/MOBILE/polish_community_in_turkey/poland_and_turkey_two_countries_in_one_mirror/poles_in_the_ottoman_empire/ states that he eventually got the rank pasha ("[...]while Alfred Bieliński (Ahmet Rüstem Pasha) was appointed ambassador of Turkey in Washington.") but I can look into it some more

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

1. A nine-page range in a book seems like nothing to me. It is normal to cite short papers without specifying the page, but whatever.
2. I dislike Google Book links: (a) it's just not our job and (b) why privilege Google Books over other ways to access the book? It's one thing to provide a link to a source that is, in its entirety, free online. But Google Books previews are not that. What's more, they don't always have the page(s) you need. And people often link to them from odd places, like .nl. When I click the links you added, I get nothing. I have to change it to .com or .ca.
3. I don't doubt pasha is correct, but it wasn't yet supported by the article. Srnec (talk) 12:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

1. To me nine pages isn't much, but I do consider that some people don't come from as educated as a background (as in they may struggle more with the text), and/or may have dyslexia. I also asked on the WP General chat on Telegram and an answer I got is that references need to be as precise as possible, although main ideas/conclusions should cite the chapter as a whole rather than the page. A lot of the content being reffed here is specific to certain pages.

2. I honestly do prefer citing from legally-provided free PDFs and the like, but often Gbooks is all we have in terms of online links. As for the odd links (.nl etc) I use VPNs to connect to Wikipedia as I'm editing from Mainland China, so the versions of Gbooks I get tend to be in European editions. It's possible one country may not display what another does, so thank you for telling me about that issue! As for print, sadly nowadays a lot of people won't even bother getting the print version when so much stuff is online... Trying to discourage Gbooks and telling them "get the print version" sadly is like herding cats.

3. Yeah, it's fair enough if/when a source for the exact statement hadn't been found yet (I found TRwiki editors used "pasha" in the template I ported over to ENwiki but they didn't include a source with the template content)

• WhisperToMe (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Confused about Wasti content

From this Google search ( saved on archive.today ):

"Ahmed Rüstem Bey and the End of an Era" should say [says] "Most sources give the date of death of Ahmed Rüstem Bey as 1935; however, a search of past issues of the New York Times indicates clearly[...]"

... yet I'm having trouble finding the string in the document itself :-( WhisperToMe (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Aha! It turns out the article preview is only showing the notes, and not the whole article. That's why I'm not seeing the phrase. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Citation format

We've gone over this territory before, but the References section with all its various links does not look better than before. We quote one source saying "is by Stephen Cambron and is available on the Internet as an e-book" and I have no idea why. We link one ISBN and not another. Citation 9 does not look like proper formatting. Then there's "Published online 14 August 2012 - Content from notes section". Why? What's wrong with clean and simple notes? Or at least some consistency in the links. Srnec (talk) 23:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Srnec: Re: the published on the internet bit, the reason why the e-book part is crucial is that I do not believe the translation was ever published in printed book format, at least not initially?
• The citation templates are usually supposed to do the standardizing for us, so converting as much of these to citation templates as possible may help. However they don't seem to be able to take all information: for example the templates don't seem to support having both old and new ISBNs, so only the new ISBNs should be included in the template. Maybe something like the citations in Murder of Tina Isa would help, as specific pages are in the notes and there is a separate bibliography for the actual works cited.
• WhisperToMe (talk) 01:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Missing book?

Wasti said one of Ahmed Rustem's books is missing. Stanford may have a copy? https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/3013050 WhisperToMe (talk) 06:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)