Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Place name changes in Turkey/1

Place name changes in Turkey

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted per consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, this is how the article looked like when it first passed the GA review. Much of the content remains from the reviewed version, and the review was quite quick, so I have some questions about the GA review itself.

There is a table under each sub-section in Place name changes in Turkey#Notable geographical name changes, showing the changed names supposedly from the listed language. Every table includes the reference to Index Anatolicus, which is not RS, since it can be edited by anyone signed up. Much of the content on the tables are also not found on that site. Sevan Nişanyan, the creator of the site, is also not an established scholar. In all sub-sections except "Georgian", there is another reference to a report by the Turkish state, and there is very little doubt that such a report would not back up non-Turkish spellings and etymological explanations. There is a clear problem regarding verifiability with reliable sources. This doesn't even scratch the tip of the iceberg, because I have not scrutinized most of the remaining sources yet.
- Note: This problem was also present at the time of the GA review this article passed.
Large numbers of references lack page numbers, include dead links such as this and this, which aren't particularly RS as well.
According to Commons, the source for the maps in Place name changes in Turkey#Notable geographical name changes is page 55 of Adını unutan ülke by Sevan Nişanyan, but as far as I can see, that page covers the place names in Bartın, nothing that includes these maps or gives an overview that could back up the maps. These maps were also clumsily drawn and contradict with Index Anatolicus in many instances, which is the updated web version of Nişanyan's book.
- Note: This problem was also present at the time of the GA review this article passed.
One questionable aspect about the article is that in some cases, ancient or alternative names are presented as names that were changed recently. These names are not and should not be this article's focus. Nişanyan's book and Index Anatolicus do not in any way, justify that and distinguish these names as having been changed as part of a deliberate policy. One of the countless examples is Izmir. According to Nişanyan's Index Anatolicus, the name "Izmir" was attested by Ibn Battuta in 1333. A problem with Adını unutan ülke and Index Anatolicus is that it largely lacks commentary and just includes lists of names per a certain year when a particular source used that name. It seems any non-Turkish name/spelling, regardless of its age, was assumed to be changed as part of the campaign of name changes.
- Note: This problem was also present at the time of the GA review this article passed.
There are some excessive citations, many of which do not back up the content. For example, in the lead, this news article was left next to the statement that the languages of origin of the changed names included Syriac, but this article only discusses Yazidis. There are 0 mentions of Syriac or Assyrian.
It's pretty clear that this article needs a good clean up. The earlier reviews have not addressed many valid questions. The first GA review barely discussed the reliability of the sources or confirmed that at least some of the statements were verified by the given sources. Still, the article failed due to lack of action. The first review misled who made the second review so that these points still weren't addressed. A reassessment should not be aimed at delisting an article, but this article is very short of passing a GA. Maybe the standards were much lower in early 2010s. Aintabli (talk) 05:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am worried there may be some original research in the article. For example, see the "Notable name changes of Kurdish geographical locations" section. Prior to Turkey being founded, many of these towns and cities had a multiethnic population with many Turkish, Armenian, Syriac etc. residents. Are all of these names post-1923 coinages or was it a case of adopting a Turkish name when multiple had been in use previously? Kızıltepe is listed here as changed from Kurdish but the pre-1915 name was actually Tell Ermen.

Examples of Assyrian/Syriac names changed are Qudshanis (now officially Konak), Gülgöze, Midyat (formerly Iwardo), and İdil (formerly Azakh). I believe these are genuine name changes but don't have the sources to prove it. (t · c) buidhe 07:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have 0.0 doubts that the article has original research, given that as I listed above, in many cases, references do not back up the content they follow. For example, Index Anatolicus, the reference for the table listing "changed Kurdish names", does not tag "Riha" as a name that was changed to "Urfa" as part of the Turkification policies. There, "Urfa" is shown as an alternative name to "Ruha" from the year 1665. Furthermore, on that site, "Riha" was tagged as an Arabic name from 870, since it was attested in Ibn Khordadbeh's Arabic work Kitabu'l Masalik wa'l Mamalik from 870. Anyone can view it by hovering the mouse on the open book icon next to "A870". This is one of countless obvious cases where "unideal" sources were misrepresented with original research tucked in. Aintabli (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for context it should be mentioned the Geographical name changes in Greece and Hebraization of Palestinian place names as, for better or worse, this type of name change is quite common in the region. (t · c) buidhe 18:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tables and maps

I have removed the tables per the first point I listed above. Anyone disputing their removal feel free to discuss those here, though there isn't much to truly dispute, since the OR is pretty obvious. Best option is to recreate those tables with verifiable examples from RS. Aintabli (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the first table in Place name changes in Turkey#Comparative analysis that showed the number of name changes per province and added those numbers to the map for better readability. Aintabli (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The map I'm talking about

Related question but Aintabli do you think the maps are accurate? I used one of them in a FA rated article and if the sourcing isn't good it should be removed there (as well as here). (t · c) buidhe 16:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe, I actually found the sources for these maps. However, much of the declared sources on Commons aren't accurate. For example, the map you shared supposedly comes from Adını unutan ülke: Türkiye'de adı değiştirilen yerler sözlüğü, but I couldn't find that map on the specified page. Another book by Nişanyan, Hayali coğrafyalar: Cumhuriyet döneminde Türkiye'de Değiştirilen Yeradları includes similar maps more or less on the same pages. So, I think if we correct the citations (which I will do in a bit), we should be good. The maps could be more precise, but it's not a major problem for now. Aintabli (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aintabli and Buidhe:, where does this GAR stand in your opinions? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It needs quite a bit of work. The earlier reviews ignored much of the article. In order to bring this article to the GA level, I would thoroughly check each source and verify the content, tweak the wording, and introduce new sources to make up for the removed content. This is equivalent to a full-on GA review, if not more than that. I will be able to get back to the reassessment a week later, though. Aintabli (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1, I concur that the article is not close to meeting the criteria and would support delisting unless anyone is planning to make dramatic improvements. (t · c) buidhe 19:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.