Talk:Akuşağı, Baskil

Nisanyan
@GGT nisanyanmap.com is not reliable when anyone can edit it and add info to the site. References are rarely given and sometimes contradict reliable academic references. Semsûrî (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * And no way Nişanyan is able to verify every bit of info given by these users. Semsûrî (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, look a bit deeper and you'll find it's a bit more nuanced than that. I know this as these village articles have been a perennial topic on tr.wiki for 15 years now. Consequently I've myself obtained a copy of Nişanyan's book Adını Unutan Ülke from a library, and cross-checked with the website in the past. Essentially: Any third-party contributions to the website are clearly marked as such. Any unlabelled information comes directly from Nişanyan's own work and is generally verifiable from the book as well (although he has made minor changes to his transcription practice since). Any information labelled as "SN" has also been added by Nişanyan himself. So Nişanyanmap is a partly reliable source, any unlabelled information or anything labelled as "SN" are just fine to use, anything marked as a third-party contribution should clearly be avoided. I've obviously stuck to this when writing this article in the first place. This comes with the caveat that Nişanyan himself should be taken with a pinch of salt when it comes to controversial topics; he is, after all, not an established scholar. --GGT (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The nuance is good to know, thanks. Semsûrî (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@GGT Just came across this discussion but couldn’t help but comment on it, because I think NişanyanMap’s reliability as source should be addressed. I think the note on the ethnicities below the historical names shouldn’t be taken as RS, because often times, it’s seemingly based on other users’ comments and lacks any references. I have also noticed over the time that those details were changed in some villages, so it’s definitely due to change, mainly because of the aforementioned fact (lack of references and other users’ input). I also believe that it’s better that we cite the given source for the historical or alternative names instead of the site. Ayıntaplı (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * , I think the problem here is that this is potentially controversial information so Nişanyan himself should ideally be cross-checked against other sources. But such information, if not entered by Nişanyan, is still clearly indicated as such, see this or this for a bunch of examples. GGT (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * My point was that the ethnicity portion, which lacks signatures and is independent from the comments, should not be considered reliable, although possibly only Nişanyan is able to edit it, because it is based on other users’ input per one of Nişanyan’s blog posts, unless Nişanyan has specifically commented on it from his own perspective. In many places, it is also inaccurate, as I have spoken with villagers, found many old and new sources that contradict with what writes there.


 * On a different note, when it comes to the comments, there is also the problem that after Nişanyan set a paywall for editing privileges, many old comments by unsubscribed users lost their signatures and got tangled with Nişanyan’s own comments.


 * So, what’s left is the historical names, which we can separately cite, as there are clear references within the site. I hope I’ve made myself clear. Ayıntaplı (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)