Talk:Anatolia

Comment

Could someone put a better map on the page? The current one is nice-looking but it doesn't put the area into a world perspective. If you know what I mean.

The opening section needs to emphasize that Anatolia is a cultural region and home to important places, like Çatalhöyük, IIRC. Starting with its etymology seems odd. It's a place, primarily, not a word.

It's also a place with a strong Pre-Turkish identity.

Boundaries

The maps of the Anatolian peninsula seem to include all of the Asian part of modern Turkey, but as I look on the map, only the part east of the Syrian coast is really a peninsula. So which of the 2 definitions is the historically accurate one?

Maybe the map of Anatolia should show its boundaries, and, if not just the peninsula, an explanation why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.41.0.50 (talk) 02:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes the definition of the actual boundaries of Anatolia make a good question. Because, if you want to refer to Anatolia as a peninsula, you need to stick to a strictly geophysical definition of its boundaries. For example, Italy and Iberia, as peninsulas, have their borders well defined by waters-divides (the Alps and the Pirenees, respectivelly). If you consider the waters-divide as a criteria, then Cilicia, Kurdistan and the historical Armenia will fall completelly off Anatolia as a geophysical conception of peninsula. Unless you chose to consider Anatolia as a geopolitical conception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.8.71.79 (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm Turkish. I don't know and befor your comment here,I was looking for it now but I didn't find any information about this topic. Even, I had wrote a comment in Turkish article's discussion part. :)

For the record, it can't be Wikipedia editors' decision. Someone else must have "discovered" that Anatolia was a peninsula before our explorers did! We need a WP:RELY source for that. It can't be a .com site. Student7 (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

sleepinbuff

sleepinbuff Asia Minor

A user added it recently. Edit summary: [1]

63.93.96.62, is that your website?deniz^T_C 22:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Anatoli in Lithuanian language means 'the land who is far away' and has nothing to do with the sunrise or rise —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.2.136 (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Ana, dolu

Hi, Deniz, thanks for fixing my typo. Here is what the cited article says about "Ana, dolu":

No less important a role for national survival is motherhood. At school, boys and girls learn to link men’s military deeds to women’s nurture. This lesson was impressed on fourth-graders in one of their readings, “Anatolia” (Anadolu). The author of the passage traces the etymology of the word “Anatolia” to a legend about a virtuous old woman who serves buttermilk to mobilized Ottoman soldiers. Every time she tells the soldiers “fill up my brave men” (doldurun yig˘itlerim), they answer “Mother, it is full” (Ana, dolu). What is relevant here is not the legendary etymology of the peninsula, but the links between milk and womanhood, on the one hand, and nationhood, on the other. In fact, in a class I attended, some seventh-graders added that mother’s milk gives strength to Turkish soldiers.

The author cites İlkokul Türkçe Ders Kitabı 3 (İstanbul: Media Print, 1990) as a source for this story. Here is another version of that legend: [2]. Of course, "ana dolu" without the comma would mean "full of mothers", but that is not what these sources give as the story. Perhaps there is more than one folk etymology, and another one explains it as "full of mothers". If so, perhaps you could find a source for that story? --Macrakis 22:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't have to be one or more than one folk etymologies. The root is simple, Ana means mother in Turkish and Dolu means full. But in Turkish, "Ana dolu" completely means "Full of mothers", even the way the word is pronounced. To say "Mother it is full", it has to be "Ana, dolu" but this is not as correct as "full of mothers" 85.101.56.73 22:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

85.101.56.73, why are you trying to legitimize one of these two claims by using grammar? We all know that the name of Anatolia comes from the ancient times, not from the Turkish times. It is like Ancyra turning into Ankara. Of course, if we take Sun Language Theory as our approach, these ancient languages also have their roots at Central Asia. Honestly, everybody knows it is a low possibility ;) Deliogul 13:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

All of this is very interesting, but the "Sun Language" idea needs to yield to actual linguistics, such as work by Merritt Ruhlen (Stanford). Proto-World is the proper term for the ur-language, and proto-Boreal is the proper term for the language spoken by the out-of-Africa migrants who firsted settled in Asia Minor and then moved up through Anatolia into Europe. DrKamaila (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Kamaila

Removed table

I removed this table because it is totally redundant with the "History of Anatolia" box.Dave (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Table

Dave, where do you get off removing the table? I liked it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.62.231 (talk) 20:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree. It can certainly be improved, but removing it takes away the chance for getting a quick overview of the main historic periods of rule and cultural influence in the region. I bet most WP users are much happier getting the info in a nutshell and going deeper at wish by using the links, than reading through the entire, unstructured article which I found here today.Arminden (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)Arminden

Weasel-words in sections of this entry

Hiding historical events behind weasel-worded phrases. Unspecified "events of World War I", we are told, did something also unpecified to "wipe out the indigenous Christian Armenian population of Eastern Anatolia" (leaving every Armenian in northern, southern, central, and western Anatolia alone, presumably). I changed it to the more concise, accurate and wikilinked "Beginning in 1915, the indigenous Christian Armenian population of Anatolia was systematically wiped out", However, it was reverted without explanation.

Also removed was my edit to remove the jargon-phrase "ethnically cleansed", this is not a proper term, and only one source calls it that. If someone wants to rewrite it to say that an author, McCarthy, characterised what happened as, quote, "ethnic cleansing" then do that, but do not reinsert a bald phrase that should not be there, or use colloquialisms like "flocked" (this is not an article about birds), or insert fantasy history, like claiming that the Ottoman empire "collapsed" during the Balkan wars, or that Greeks living in Anatolia only started to be expelled as a result of the Treaty of Lausanne. If someone like McCarthy uses such stupid phrases or such gross generalisations in his books then that is his buisness, but they have no place in an encyclopedia. Meowy 21:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Relax, friend. We, too, are trying to write an encyclopedia. It would perhaps help if you not elevate yourself above Justin McCarthy. Accept him as one of the people (like Bernard Lewis, and your own favorites) who have studied and pronounced on this issue. Then approach this article as a negotiation, not as the transcription of a truth which you alone possess.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 03:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Some might say that even a humble worm could elevate itself above the level of Justin McCarthy. Please address the issues that I raised, and not your or my opinion of McCarthy. Is it appropriate to use colloquialisms like "flocked", or media-generated jargon like "ethnic cleansing", or have inaccuracies like "collapsed", or euphemisms like "events of WW1"? Meowy 15:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

We all know what happened. Call it wiped out, de-populated, ethnically cleansed, moved, forced to move, exchanged, genocided, etc... do not impose your sense of vocabulary and pc on others. You do not actually own these terms. They are common epressions and not quotes. WWI and disintigration of the Ottoman Empire was the real root cause of population moves, both in and out of Anatolia. They did not move because of Lausanne for pete's sake! One of course needs to add all the later groups that were ethnically cleansed from their homes and found refuge in Anatolia in later decades. The events we all watched on cnn. This needs to be further expanded maybe, since the mosaic so rich actually. What part of this does anyone have a problem with?--Murat (talk) 03:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Should "events from World War I" be used? The expulsion of the Armenians continued for quite some time after (like in Cilicia). Many also tried to return to their homes, but were not allowed to do so. Studied and pronounced on the issue? Robert Faurisson and David Irving have studied and pronounced as well, but I don't see them on the Holocaust or gas chamber articles. Hakob (talk) 09:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That's why I used "Beginning in 1915", that and the fact that it avoids a resemblence to McCarthy's genocide denialist line that it was all just "events in WW1" (or as the wikipedia entry on him puts it, "subsumes into the general chaos of World War I"). Meowy 16:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think "WWI events" is appropriate as it is a root cause. I have (tried) to list others as well. Population moves continued well into our time of course. What does attempt at returning home have anything with this?--Murat (talk) 12:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Murat, sorry I didn't explain why I had removed your material. I did it because it was off-topic here. This is just a general entry for Anatolia, with a subsection of it dealing with its populations. It is not an article about the post WW1 population exchanges so we can't have in this entry detailed stuff like the names of specific islands that are not even in Anatolia. However, I think there is a place to mention population changes in the 20s and 30s and later - such as the continued loss of Anatolia's remaining Armenian population. If there were also Turks or other Muslims arriving from Crimea, Bulgaria, etc, then that too should be mentioned. Meowy 16:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It is all fine but why so many paragraphs then singaling out Armenians and secondarily Greeks, their specific history and fate and who and when etc., when there was so much (more actually) population movement also involving Muslims and other ethnic groups? Locations are mentioned as they are the origins of people moving in and distinguish them, such as "Ahiska Turks" vs "Crimean Tatars". Maybe there should be a another heading: "Peoples of Anatolia".--Murat (talk) 01:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be hard to separate out "Peoples of Anatolia" material from the "history" section without having a lot of duplication. Trouble is this is just a general article about Anatolia and there won't be space to consider things in detail. Regarding incoming Turks in the modern period, if they did not change the culture or ethnic makeup of Anatolia, for example if Anatolia was 95% Turkish and 100,000 Turks arrive from Bulgaria making it 95.1% Turkish, then should they be mentioned at all? However, some Muslim groups, like Chechens or Circasians, kept and still keep their ethnic identity. Meowy 20:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Very rarely did the refugees from the Caucasus "keep their ethnic identity." Many Turks do remember that their ancestors came from these areas, but they view themselves as Turks, and seldom speak a Caucasian language. Assimilation worked very well, much like it did with early waves of European immigrants to the United States. The article Turkification deals with assimilation in Anatolia, though it currently focuses on assimilation during the Seljuk period, when Armenians and other autochthonous peoples converted to Islam and adopted the Turkish language.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 12:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there is a lack of knowledge about who or what makes up the non-Christian masses of Turkey. Many simply lump them as one big group since they are not Armenians or Greeks! There are over 5-6 million people who consider themselves "bosnak", meaning from Rumeli, or Balkans for example. Millions of people ethnically cleansed from Greece, Thrace, Bulgaris, Crimea, Armenia, Yugoslavia, Romania, Albania, Macedonia, Cyprus, Chechneya, Circussia, Syria, Lebanon, Caucauses in general, Afghanistan, Russia, North Africa, etc make up a large chunk of the people of Turkey. They mostly call themselves Turks happily. I do not even include the population moves in modern times, from Bulgaria, Bosnia, Thrace, Cyprus, and over a million some say escaping Iran-Iraq war, then Northern Iraq and Afghans etc... add to this 'guest workers' and immigrants from Russia, Moldovia, Ukraine, Armenia and other non-Muslim origins. So "Turk" to most of us means someone from Turkey and speaks primarily Turkish. For daily usage, at least in Turkey today, it does not have an ethnic connotation, at least for most folks.--Murat (talk) 04:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

can we add an image of an ancient coin?

I added some content about Asia Minor being the birthplace of coinage and a link to my site about this interesting subject. It would be great to upload an image of an early ancient (gold) coin that was minted in Ephesos for demonstration of the point. How can we do that? Would that be of interest to the article? Syennesis (talk) 13:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You will have to provide a proper reference for that claim, and not just a link to your website. Meowy 20:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That's fairly easy to do. It's common knwoledge really that the first coin was minted and used as a currency in Lydia.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It might be common knowledge to Classical coin collectors, but it won't be to anyone else! Meowy 14:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are many books on the subject and the site is devoted to the subject as a whole (we also have many references listed at Reference page). But many thanks to the user who provided the Howgego reference on Lydian coinage, though I might add that Ephesos also has a claim to the proposition (a coin of which I was going to post). Syennesis (talk) 09:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It has always been my understanding that the Lydian one predated the Ephesos coin?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that electrum was first found (and probably traded) in Lydia, but it is an open question where those naturally occurring chunks of metal (found on riverbanks) were first standardized in weight and struck with some insignia. Much recent evidence points to Ionia, with Ephesos being the natural candidate as the main city of the time. Please take a look at these coins - Ionia Uncertain. They appear (based on style and fabric) to be older than the traditional Lydian lions (at least to me). I believe the recent archeological evidence also points to Ephesos as being settled earlier than previously thought, and certainly the finds at the Temple of Artemis (The Phanes Hoard - see here) reveal that electrum coins were struck at Ephesos at a very early time -- we are talking about mid to late 7th century BC. Syennesis (talk) 05:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

SOUTHEASTERN ANATOLIA NOT "EASTERN ANATOLIA"

The region so called "easten anatolia" has since 4000 years back been called KURDISTAN. The name Anatolia, or ASIA MINOR as it was called like that --> referred to the greek history before the settlement of the of the mongols (now Turks), who slaughtered everyone the could find came there, they came only 1000 years ago there. Just because the state Turley has occupied the northern part of KURDISTAN, it want to use the name "Anatolia" becuase to make itself "more european", but reffered to the history it is always been called "Asia Minor". And naming Northern Kurdistan as "Eastern Anatolia (Güney Anadolu and Daglar Anadolu) is a political and demographic turkization of the Kurdistanian part of Turkey (Northern Kurdistan). They want to name the land of Kurdistan that they have occupied (since 1922, although the Treaty of Sevres didn't work out that promised the Kurdistanians to be independent with a land of 550 000 sqare kilometres), that they want to name the occupied northern part of Kurdistan as "eastern Anatolia", although it is not "anatolia", and that "Anatolia" is in real "Asia Minor" (That normally don't include Kurdistan, olny The pennisula of historicly Asia Minor.

KURDISTAN has existed long before the settlement of the Turks from Mongolia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.151.43.53 (talk) 14:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Taking the ranting out of the above comment, there is a fraction of truth in it. Historically, Anatolia did not extend into what is now called by Turkey "eastern Anatolia". We can actually see this in some of the content in the article. For example, the history subsection currently begins with the words "Eastern Anatolia contains the oldest monumental structures in the world", giving as examples. Göbekli Tepe, Çatalhöyük, Çayönü, Nevali Cori, and Hacilar. Actually none of these are in "eastern Anatolia" if the definition of it within this article is used. They are all actually in central Anatolia or in regions west of it. However, they would be mostly correctly described as being in eastern Anatolia if "eastern Anatolia" ended where it historically did, at the western borders of Armenia (Armenia used as a geographical region, not as an ethnic one). Some wording needs to be found to express this within the article. Meowy 21:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

WE NEED AN ARTICLE ABOUT ANATOLIANS!

Turks were originally from CENTRAL ASIA!. Turkey obviousy is far from the centre of Asia,(DUH!) so who are the natives. uuuuhhhh... ANATOLIANS! Surely we can't ignore THEIR EMPPIRE! --GooglePedia12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.57.142 (talk) 04:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC) Anotolia had many different cultures, civilizations and natives!!!! :) So, It is not Greek or nor Turkish but there are living much Turkish people. For the historical records and archological researches, there are living many races. Even before Greeks. :D but This is not enough imformations to express! Maybe a few or years later. :)Who knows? 95.7.168.210 (talk) 01:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC) <<<< —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.7.168.210 (talk) 01:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Names Asia Minor

Current usage makes Anatolia and Asia Minor essentially synonymous but the original meaning of Asia Minores was Asia inside the Roman Empire versus Asia Magna all of Asia beyond the borders. The source for this is History of the Goths, Herwig Wolfram second edition page 81, (85-29044). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitpyck (talk • contribs) 19:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC) My bad- this belongs in names of Anatolia. Nitpyck (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

And some anon has just added Greek names for Asia Minor. I doubt if they are a helpful addition, but since Asia Minor redirects to here, they are justified for that reason alone. I think this matter will have to be sorted out. Meowy 02:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

POV edits by Pantepoptes

This editor has twice erased mention of the WW1-period genocide of Anatolia's Armenian population and the partial destruction of its Greek population. He has attempted to introduce serious distortions of reality by claiming that some of Anatolia is not in Turkey, that the Byzantine empire did not control all of western and central Anatolia at the time ofthe Arab invasions, and that the Armenian genocide was actualy just a "struggle ... during the collapse of the Ottoman Empire" against Turks and Kurds. Meowy 19:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Typical Turkish POV. The issue here, is that the history section should present a very brief overview, not go into excruciating detail about who killed whom and who burned what. The 3 genocides that occured in Anatolia are widely recognized and deserve mention, while there is no such thing as a "Turkish genocide", nor do any Greek or Armenian reprisals qualify as such. There are no two sides to a genocide, and there should be no equivocating and attempts to justify genocide. Particularly in this article, which is primarily a geography article. --Athenean (talk) 01:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Pantepoptes refuses to justify any of his edits in this talk page, refuses to address any of the points I made in my above post, and seems to be actually boasting about that silence in the edit summary in which he says "I'm not "justifying" anything". Meowy 02:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Pantepoptes has again vandalised the article by reinserting his lies and distortions. And he still refuses to justify any of his edits on this talk page! Can he justify any of his delusions? If he believes that some parts of western and central anatolia was not under Byzantine control at the outset of the Arab invasions, then would he tell us exactly which parts? If he believes that some parts of Anatolia are not in Turkey, would he tell us exactly which parts? And why does he not want to mention that, with Persian help, various local dynasties in eastern Turkey opposed Ottoman rule for centuries? And why does he think he can get away with filling the hstory section - a section that is meant to be concise given that there is already a main article on the same subject - with the usual laughable Turkish extremist propaganda? Meowy 15:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

There has been no response or argument against my above points, so I have made tchanges to the article to correct the errors that I pointed out. Meowy 14:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm new in here, but I think the phrase "the Armenian Genocide, the Greek genocide (especially in Pontus), and the Assyrian Genocide almost entirely eliminated the Armenian and Assyrian populations of Anatolia, as well as a large part of its ethnic Greek population" is too rigid, and accusatory. You might believe that these genocides happened, but if you are writing a non-POV encyclopedia, when you mention a theory (in this case the genocides that are mentioned in the article) you should also mention the anti-thesis. What could be done about this part is to say "Some (or many, however you like, and make citation) propose that the Armenian Genocide, the Greek genocide (especially in Pontus), and the Assyrian Genocide almost entirely eliminated the Armenian and Assyrian populations of Anatolia, as well as a large part of its ethnic Greek population; however, there isn't an international concensus about this and some (citation), most significantly Turkey, argues otherwise" or whatever. I don't think you will agree with me on this point.DenizCc (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

There are two articles on Aermenians. Armenian Genocide and Armenian Genocide denial. There are two viewpoints. One) that the genocide occurred and two) that the Armenians did indeed die, but the deaths were unintentional and therefore not "genocide" per se, not that the deaths didn't happen. Turks in government at the time conceded that Armenians had died. Are you saying that there are millions of Armenians left in Turkey? There are clearly not millions of Greeks left! What happened to them? See Greek genocide and Population exchange between Greece and Turkey. Student7 (talk) 20:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Questionable additions by Enerelt

This sentence, The Ottoman ruler Orhan I was the first Turkish leader who minted coins in his own name, declaring full independence. --Osman's Dream: The History of the Ottoman Empire, p.61, is not supported by the reference given. A correct reference is needed. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Another issue is that the history section in this article should provide a brief overview. It's fine by me to say that Mongols swept through eastern Anatolia, but getting down into details about Karamanids and Mameluks versus then Ilkhanate is a bit much. More detailed information should be included in History of Anatolia, not here. Moreover, the edits are poorly written and difficult for the general reader to understand. --Athenean (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I have waited for people to respond, but since no one has, I have removed it. It is poorly written and confusing (who are the Karamanids? who are the "Rumi Mongols"? who are the Borijgin Ilkhans, and what is their relationship with the "Rumi Mongols"?), it is contradictory (if tension was high between Turks and Mongols, why did the Seljuks aid the Mongols, and most importantly, it goes into way to much detail. Per WP:SS, the history section here should only present a brief overview. More detailed passages such as this can go in History of Anatolia. I would have moved the passage myself, but considering it is so poorly written, I think it's better to just remove it. --Athenean (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The Mongols did not really "sweep through eastern Anatolia". They swept through an area that, using the modern Turkish terminology, is now known as eastern Anatolia. The location of "Anatolia" at the time of the Mongol is different from what is being presented in this article. There has to be wording added to the article that more clearly explains the fact that until the post WW1-period, the eastern border of Anatolia essentially ended at the Kizilirmak river. Sources prior to that date that write of "Anatolia" will not be referring to what is now widely-known as Anatolia. Also, when most historians, even present-day ones, use the term Anatolia they are refering to its original location and limits, not the entire land mass of present-day Turkey. Meowy 23:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point. The way the article is currently written, it essentially equates Anatolia with the Asian portion of Turkey. For example, the geography section subdivides Anataolia 6 regions that are identical to the [[|list of regions of Turkey|statistical regions of Turkey]], which are a very, very recent political creation. I agree that this seems rather odd. However, redressing this will require a major re-write of the article, not just the section about the Mongols. Ideally, the article should establish the generally accepted boundaries of "Anatolia" through academic sources. --Athenean (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I think a good 70% of what is in this article should really be in the article about Turkey and not here. Yes I also can't see any reason for there to be such a big space given to the modern administrative regions of Turkey, and the history should be confined to the region that was Anatolia when that history took place. Meowy 23:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Geographical definition of Anatolia

According to this reputable source [3], Anatolia is defined as "the vast region of mountains and upland plateaux which extend across the interior of modern Turkey from the Mediterranean and Black sea coasts to the Euphrates and the Syrian desert." More to come. --Athenean (talk) 07:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm .... Seton Lloyd, when director of what he self-called the "English" Institute of Archeology at Ankara, if Turkey said (in the sense of requiring a compromise of one's academic credibility) "bend over", he just said "how far". "Kemel Ataturk ... found himself compelled to exclude several well-established non-Turkish minorities". I wonder if Hitler didn't actually exterminate millions of Jews, Poles, Russians and assorted other peoples, he just found himself compelled to exclude them. Meowy 21:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Damn, I wasn't aware of that. That's pretty incredible about the "compelled" bit. Strike that source then. --Athenean (talk) 22:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

rv of good faith edits by IP

I reverted some good faith edits by an IP editor on the grounds that they conflated Anatolia with Turkey. While all of Anatolia is now in Turkey, Turkey extends well to the east of Anatolia. Anatolia makes up the western 2/3 of Turkey, but the two are not coterminous. Athenean (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I also reverted some not-so-good faith edits by IP 88.251, which is the banned User:Shuppiluliuma, who suffers from a serious case of WP:OWN and rved many helpful contributions without so much as a hint of discussion. Athenean (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Some of the words do not originate from Greek!

"Anatolia (from Greek Aνατολή Anatolē — "East" or "(sun)rise"" is misinformation if not disinformation. Apparently this Wikipedia article is under Greek invasion, like whole western culture is under influence of pan-hellenism. Who cares about the meaning of the word in Greek? How shortsighted and ignorant is to assume that the word "Anatolia" originates from Greek, because western world learned it from Greeks and it was used by Greeks to describe the direction of the place relative to Greece? It doesn't prove anything but that Greeks do not belong there. Wikipedia readers have the right to find out the meaning of the word for the people of Anatolia, which in local tongue is "full of mothers" literally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.123.50.222 (talk) 12:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the Ionians were there first. If you can find a credible WP:RELY reference, we can discuss it, but the etymology appears to be Greek; the Turkish name a derivation from that, whatever it means nowdays in Turkic. Student7 (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the Ionians were not Greek; they are among the ancestors of Turks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.123.47.156 (talk) 01:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who the Ionians were ancestors of; they spoke Ionic Greek. And the name Anatolia seems to be formed according to Ancient Greek word-formation rules: it has a Greek stem (ana-tol, o-grade of ana-tel-, the root of the verb anatéllō "raise up" or "rise") with a Greek suffix (-iā, used to form abstract nouns or country names). The Greek theory of the word's origin makes sense; what is your theory? What Turkish or Turkic words do you think "Anatolia" originated from? — Eru·tuon 02:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 18 November 2011

You're missing the article "the". Please, change "As a result, Anatolia is one of archeologically richest places on earth." to "As a result, Anatolia is one of the archeologically richest places on earth.", because to my understanding of the English language the structure is "X is one of the (modifier)+(adjective) on earth."

Shadaypr (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! __ Just plain Bill (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Antatolia vs. Asian Turkey

I feel like Anatolia and Asian Turkey (currently a redirect) these should be two separate articles. But as it's not a simple matter of spinning off a section and I'm kind of busy I'll simply point the problem as I see it:

The modern use of "Anatolia" to mean "Asian Turkey" in English is a case of pars pro toto. It's certainly an accepted usage (and in fact I've also seen "Anatolia" used to describe all of Turkey) nowadays, no doubt helped by the fact that the English translations of the Turkish name for (roughly) the non-Anatolian parts of Asian Turkey are "Eastern Anatolia" and "Southeastern Anatolia." So far as I know, the usage of Anatolia to extend into that area stems to the founding of the Turkish Republic, to forestall foreign claims on the Turkish parts of Mesopotamia and the Armenian Highlands. But as this article seems to be (and should be) about historic and geographic Anatolia, and there ought to be a separate article for the whole Asian Turkey. —Quintucket (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with split. Also agree it is not a simple change!  :) We do want to keep precise boundaries where they are defined. I believe they are here. Since the inhabitants were different back when, a different article seems appropriate for much of ancient history. Student7 (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a futile endeavour. The Turkish government might have named its eastern and southeastern parts as Anatolia for political reasons, but the changes have been adopted by pretty much everyone. Oh, and since "Asian Turkey" redirects to this article, I restored the content regarding East and Southeast Anatolia. --Mttll (talk) 23:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hold on a sec, "adopted by pretty much "everyone"? Who is "everyone"? Can you provide some sources that this is the case? Since it's been adopted by "everyone" I can't imagine it should be that difficult. Till then out it goes. Athenean (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

For starters, how do you like Encyclopedia Britannica?

"Anatolia, Turkish Anadolu, also called Asia Minor, the peninsula of land that today constitutes the Asian portion of Turkey."

About general usage;

Find sources: "Eastern Anatolia" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference

Find sources: "East Anatolia" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference

Find sources: "Southeastern Anatolia" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference

Find sources: "Southeast Anatolia" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference

For contrast;

Find sources: "Armenian Highland" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference

Find sources: "Western Armenian Highland" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference

Find sources: "West Armenian Highland" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference

Find sources: "Northern Mesopotamia" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference

Find sources: "North Mesopotamia" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference

Problem? --Mttll (talk) 08:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, big problem. You raw google searches mean nothing. What you need to provide are sources (and many, not just one or two), that Anatolia=Asian Turkey, nothing less. Britannica is one, but not nearly enough. Athenean (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if you have a problem with your sight, but those are not merely raw google searches, but book and scholarly article searches as well. And it so happens "Eastern Anatolia" turns up 117,000 results in books and 12,200 results in articles; whereas the alternate term you champion (Armenian Highland) has 4,570 results in books and 244 results in articles. So there is no contest in terms of prominence as the former is approximately 25 to 50 times more common than the latter.

And while I have no obligation to find sources directly equating Anatolia with Asian Turkey (which is something Wikipedia does), it's an effortless task, so I might as well do it:

"ANATOLIA: The Asian region of Turkey, called Anadolu in Turkish." (Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa)

"Anatolia, Asian part of Turkey, usually synonymous with Asia Minor." (The Columbia Encyclopedia)

"Asia Minor (or Anatolia) The westernmost part of Asia now comprising Asiatic Turkey." (A Dictionary of World History)

Source: Encyclopedia.com

Once again, problem? --Mttll (talk) 01:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

(unindent) The rather generalist sources you are using do seem to back your case, however in specialist literature (e.g. [4]) doesn't follow this convention. Archeologists would never refer to Northern Mesopotamia as "Southeastern Anatolia" and the Western Armenian Highland as "Eastern Anatolia". That said, I do agree with the other users that the best way forward is for the article to be split. That makes four of us, which I consider consensus, so I'll start working on that. Anatolia should focus on historical Anatolia, while all the stuff about climate and economy I will move to Asian Turkey. Athenean (talk) 06:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

First of all, there is no need for the article, "Anatolia", to focus on history when it's a word that's in common use in the modern world and when another article exactly named "History of Anatolia" already exists.

Secondly, I recall showing you how "Eastern Anatolia" results in some 117,000 books and 4,570 articles, so what are you talking about it's a generalist convention? Here are some sources regarding archeology and history:

- Archaeology at the North-East Anatolian Frontier (Matasha McConchie)

- The heritage of Eastern Turkey: from earliest settlements to Islam (Antonio Sagona)

Uruk Mesopotamia und its Neighbors: Cross - Cultural Interactions in the Era of State Formation (Santa Fe and Oxford, 2001); for eastern Anatolia see chapters by Rothmann (an overview), Stein (Hacinebi), and Frangipane (Arslantepe).

- Life in Neolithic farming communities: social organization (Ian Kuijt)

Chapter 3 Hallan Çemi and Early Village Organization in Eastern Anatolia

- A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (D. T. Potts)

In part, this lacuna in our understanding of eastern Anatolia in the immediate aftermath of the Kura-Araxes may be a result ... However, the lack of assemblages in eastern Anatolia comparable to the Early Kurgans and Trialeti-Vanadzor ...

- Pre-classical pottery of eastern Anatolia (H. F. Russell, Charles Allen Burney)

- The later prehistory of Anatolia: the late Chalcolithic and early Bronze Age, Part 1 (Jak Yakar)

In that respect, and as far as house plans are concerned, there are a number of close similarities between the domestic dwellings of north-central Anatolia (eg AlacahflyUk, BUyUk GUllflcek) and the highlands of eastern Anatolia

- Prehistoric Anatolia: the Neolithic transformation and the early Chalcolithic period (Jak Yakar)

ZONE B: EASTERN ANATOLIA In recent years field investigations in eastern Anatolia have intensified. In the Malatya province, ...

- Anatolia: Volume 1 (U. Bahadır Alkım)

Central and Eastern Anatolia The high plateaux of central and eastern Anatolia were the home of one of the most important groups of Early Bronze Age cultures.

- Collapse of the Bronze Age: The Story of Greece, Troy, Israel (Manuel Robbins)

Centuries earlier, Hurrians had come south from eastern Anatolia and left kings on the thrones of Amurru and Canaan.

- Anatolia and the ancient Near East (Kutlu Emre, Tahsin Özgüç)

AN EARLY TRADING CENTER IN EASTERN ANATOLIA

- The Aşvan Sites: Keban rescue excavations, eastern Anatolia (Antonio G. Sagona, Claudia Sagona)

The southern half of eastern Anatolia comprises a series of ranges east of the Euphrates which are essentially a continuation of the Anti- Taurus system.

- Anatolia: From the beginnings to the end of the 2nd millennium B.C (U. Bahadır Alkım, Henri Metzger, U. Bahadır Alkım)

on the one hand and Cilicia on the other, so that it will be possible to establish a comparative chronology. Central and Eastern Anatolia The high plateaux of central and eastern Anatolia were the home of one of the most important ...

- Eastern Anatolia and Urartians (Afif Erzen)

- Essays on ancient Anatolia in the second millennium B.C. (Mikasa no Miya Takahito)

About a century later, at the end of the twelfth century BC, small political entities started to take shape in parts of eastern Anatolia.

- Iron Age pottery in Northern Mesopotamia, Northern Syria and South-Eastern Anatolia (Arnulf Hausleiter, Andrzej Reiche)

Very little pottery was known from this area of eastern Anatolia prior to the rescue excavations of the 1970s and 80s, ...

Need more? You only need to ask. --Mttll (talk) 11:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Please note that a similar discussion was held at Talk:Prehistory of Anatolia earlier this year. Iblardi (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Splitting off a new article Asian Turkey seems a pretty pointless task, even if it is concluded that the balance of sources point to Asian Turkey being different to Anatolia. It would result in repetition of large chunks from the Turkey and Anatolia articles. What is there that the reader would get from this that wouldn't be covered by those articles? In the English-speaking world, I don't believe it is a term which is notable (viz. google searches). It's just a geographic concept, as is Asian Russia, which is also a re-direct and not an article. I would suggest that the appropriate approach is to remove non-Anatolian material from this article (if feasible) and transfer them where appropriate to other existing articles (eg Turkish province articles) DeCausa (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Excellent point. I have tried to remove material referring to the Turkish statistical regions of "Southeastern Anatolia" and "Eastern Anatolia", which are not really part of Anatolia, only to run into the brick wall of Mttll's edit-warring. Athenean (talk) 23:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, you are wrong. They are geographical regions named by Turkey, and used by some tens of thousands of scholars and scientists who seem to prefer it over any alternate term. --Mttll (talk) 01:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

OK it looks like there are sources pointing to both. Having looked over them briefly they seem to indicate the following: 1) Anatolia, prior to the founding of the Turkish Republic, was always used to mean the more limited area (i.e. not the whole of what is now Asian Turkey) 2) since then when sources need to be, let us say, pedantic because they are specialist geography works, they appear to continue to use this restrictive meaning (e.g. Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary, 2001, p.46) 3) the Turkish Goverment uses Anatolia to mean Asian Turkey for political reasons 4) it is now common - but by no means universal - for works (even by academic authors) to loosely refer to the whole of Asian Turkey as Anatolia. If there is agreement that that is the position (and scanning the posts above, broadly I would say that might be the case) then a possible solution could be to leave the article as is but add as a first section ("Terminology"?) to the article containing basically a discussion of those 4 points. As it is, the article is misleading because it treats (3) and (4) to be the absolute position, which is clearly wrong. DeCausa (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

That is also a good suggestion. Fine by me. Athenean (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I also agree a "terminology" section may be useful. But I don't think the entire article should be written in a "dualist" fashion, neither should there be fixation on the political reasons Turkey might have had when it was naming its geographical regions; since, like I said before, the names seem to have been well adopted by the academic community. And these disputes on Wikipedia are possibly the most heated ones that ever occurred anywhere on this matter. --Mttll (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. DeCausa (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

On the section, "Location and definition", it says:

"This wider definition of Anatolia has gained some currency outside of Turkey and has, for instance, been adopted by Encyclopedia Britannica."

I'm sorry, but this is a huge understatement. "Eastern Anatolia" is by far the most common term the academic community uses to refer to Eastern Turkey as I proved time and time again.

And about the lead section, I don't see why there is need to even mention the Turkish government, when many chief encyclopedias say Anatolia is more or less synonymous with Asian Turkey. As for giving out the so called traditional definition there, I believe it defeats the whole purpose behind the "location and definition" section. There is really no point whatsoever in the new section if the article is going to be using dual definition in all sections. --Mttll (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you are being quite unrealistic. Absent the Turkish government designations, there can be no reason why the lands east of the Gulf of Iskenderun would be called Anatolia. Anatolia is a peninsula, as stated in the article. The lands east of the Gulf of Iskenderun, by definition, are not part of a peninsula. The sources you cite are not geographical gazetteers. They are general works (even if many are academic) and they quite obviously following the Turkish government designation, and in most cases simply use them: "Eastern Anatolian Region", "South Eastern Anatolian Region". Merriam-Webster's is the only specialist geographical gazetteer cited on this page. It also happens to be the world's most authoritative gazetteer. I'm not sure what you mean by using "dual definition" in all sections. The rest of the article covers the wider definition. However, one cannot avoid the fact that there are two definitions in existence: a traditional/historical/geographically pedantic one and a more generalised/non-specialist one originating from the Turkish government designation. DeCausa (talk) 07:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

There are in fact sources dating from before the establishment of the republic of Turkey that use the term "Anatolia" in this broader sense. Again, see the older discussion at Talk:Prehistory_of_Anatolia, especially nrs. 14-18 (sources from 1907 to 1915). Iblardi (talk) 07:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair point. The later Turkish usage didn't come out of a vacuum, clearly. But I think it's reasonably clear that the impetus for its widespread use is official Turkish usage. DeCausa (talk) 08:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Changed "some" currrency to "widespread" currency, and added reference to other encyclopedias than britannica. Hope that helps. DeCausa (talk) 09:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Excellent work, my only remaining concern is a rather minor one, namely that I don't think there is a need to go over the whole eastern boundary definition in the lede, i.e. the last two sentences of the opening paragraph. If they are to stay, the last sentence should be changed to and the borders with Syria and Iraq as the southern boundary, because the "Southeastern Anatolia" region is in effect the northernmost part of Mesopotamia. Athenean (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

That would be better. I just kept the existing text so as not to raise too many new points at the same time. DeCausa (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

What would be better? Removing the whole "eastern boundary" thing from the lede or changing the sentences? Athenean (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry...changing the sentences. DeCausa (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. Athenean (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Home to vs Inhabited by

"Anatolia has been inhabited by many peoples throughout history, such as the Hattians, Hurrians, Hittites, Luwians, Phrygians, Lydians, Persians, Greeks, Assyrians, Mitanni, Scythians, Cimmerians, Urartians, Carians, Commagene, Cilicians, Arameans, Corduene, Armenians, Romans, Colchians, Georgians, Kurds, Seljuk Turks, and Ottomans."

It would be incorrect to say it was "Home to" (the home of) many of those peoples or civilizations. "Inhabited by" is a better term. It's also more academic in tone. But since "home to" is false I cannot accept the article remaining in that state. It was not the home of all those civilizations and if used in the sense of "where someone lives" this is an extremely sloppy use of the term "home". From [5] the relevant definition is "4a : a place of origin <salmon returning to their home to spawn>; also : one's own country <having troubles at home and abroad>". Anatolia was not "home to" Romans, Greeks, Persians, etc., etc. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 16:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, "I cannot accept the article remaining in that state". It's not for you to "accept" or "not accept". You should know that when there is resistance to a change to an article you want to make the proper reaction is to take it to the talk page to gain consensus for your change before attempting it again. You were reverted by two different editors. It's not for you to batter your change into the article. Secondly, your first change was poor idiom and not an improvement. Two editors told you that. Thirdly, the change you have now made is better and I won't revert - I can't speak for other editors of course and you should have suggested here before making the change. These are WP basics and you should by now (I see you have 800 edits) understand the WP process. DeCausa (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It's "not for you" (?) to dictate what I (am to?) "accept" or "not accept". I'll defer to your status as a native English speaker as to whether "home to Greeks" or "inhabited by Greeks" makes more sense and is more encyclopedic in tone. Thanks for to work it with me in this topic. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 17:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of Bayesian phylogeographic analysis

This edit was made by the apparent author of the work cited in the added footnote - now footnote no. 20. I've left a message on his talk page about this thread. This isn't a problem in itself from the point of view of the COI policy: I think it just requires extra care. The document itself looks scholarly, and, WP:AGF I'm sure it is. But, not being an area I have any knowledge of, I can't tell whether it puts forward a notable opinion, how it sits with WP:UNDUE and, most importantly, whether it's a WP:RS. The reason for the latter comment is that I can't seem to work out the identity/status of the website it's published on, and whether it's self-publication. I would suggest that an editor with knowledge of the topic, or the author himself, explains in this thread, for the record, how it satisfies those requirements. Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 10:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Taking another look at the website, although I can't read Finnish, it does rather look like self-publication and therefore may not be a reliable source per WP:SELFPUBLISH. Hopefully, the author can clarify. DeCausa (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi! It is true that I mostly add links to my own relevant opinions - those I know best, so there are no misunderstandings concerning the contains. This whole phylogenetic method is so far so full of uncertainties and possible errors, that there must be some critical link balancing the Wikipedia article. If you can find some better critical review which has been already published in some scientific journal, mine can be replaced. I aim to extend my article and offer it to publication, but that won't happen in the very near future... Considering the huge publicity Bouckaert et al. got in the news media, I saw it urgent to publish the main points in my own page: it is easier to cut the weed before it grows too strong roots. --Jaakko Häkkinen (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I can understand your scholarly desire "to cut the weed before it grows too strong roots", but unfortunately Wikipedia's policies mean it can't be done here. Wikipedia is about collecting and summarising material that is published in reliable sources (if you follow the link you'll see how this is defined). It is specifically not for publishing original research - that needs to go to established journals etc before it can go into Wikipedia. If the views in the published material aren't widely accepted by other scholars (even if published in reliable sources) they may still not go into Wikipedia if it means to do so would give undue emphasis (again follow the link for further explanation) given the overall balance of academic opinion. To put it crudely, Wikipedia's aim is not to be on the forefront of knowledge - just to repeat well established old knowledge!

Can I suggest that you revert your edit and consider putting it back in once (a) you have published the material (b) the scholarly reaction to it is known. I hope that wouldn't put you off contributing to Wikipedia - we're in real need of academic subject experts contributions. DeCausa (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, the method of Bouckaert et al. is not widely accepted, either (by googling you can find critique by historical linguists, but it is not yet published in scientific journals) so it should be taken away, too. I saw the Wikipedia policy very problematic already in the Finnish Wikipedia. At the present Wikipedia gives much room for poorly argued minority views only because they have been published, and presents them as equal alternatives for the best-argued mainstream theories. This is the very reason why many scientists don't see any point in Wikipedia - for them views are always rated by their quality, and this level is lacking in Wikipedia. Objectivity should not mean that the quality of the views is not allowed to assess. I firmly believe that the present policies prevent Wikipedia to ever reach a status of reliable source of information for the general audience.

If you want to edit the article, go ahead - my scientific ethic prevents me to edit it to a direction which makes the quality and objectivity of the article poorer. That would only result the misleading of the general audience. Jaakko Häkkinen (talk) 10:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I can completely understand why that would be your reaction. The problem is Wikipedia - "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" - isn't peer reviewed. There's no way of telling which editors have proper knowledge and training on any subject and have conducted credible research, and those that don't/haven't. It would mean that I (who knows nothing about Bayesian phylogeographic analysis, and not even sure what it means) could incorporate my views on the subject in an article as much as you could. It would be total chaos. We can't verify the credibility of individual Wikipedia editors and we can't verify the credibility of their views. All we can do is take what has been peer reviewed elsewhere, and re-publish that. This might lead to the weakness of giving "room for poorly argued minority views only because they have been published", but if it were not for that Wikipedia's content would become entirely the random personal views of those who happened to make the effort to edit. I think that the risk you identified is relatively low: if, as you say, Bouckaert et al. lack scholarly support,this will become apparent in a relatively short time by other publications. The problem Wikipedia has is having editors with sufficient subject knowledge of the literature to be aware of those other publications. That's were people like yourself could really make a significant improvement to Wikipedia articles. I'm afraid I will have to revert your edit if you are not willing to do so.

On the question of deleting the Bouckaert et al., that work was published in a leading scientific journal. It would need to be discredited in other published WP:reliable sources for it to be deleted for the reason you suggest. Are there any sources that correspond to that? DeCausa (talk) 11:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

As a bypasser (and a lay person in this field, and with no connections to any of the discussants here) I started to wonder, how come there are still many citations of Angela Marcantonio in articles concerning the uralic languages, even though there has been very clear peer reviewed crticism on her work that leaves very little left of her views and their reliability (see, for example, Juha Janhunen here, p. 58). When this kind of material appears and is cited in many wikipedia language versions, it is quite clear, that little can be left of the reliability of wikipedia and what jaakko Häkkinen says above about "poorly argued minority views" is the exact truth, even if there is peer revieved very clear criticism published. - Simply it seems, that nobody has time to correct even the worst errors. Or as Juha Janhunen says it in the article linked above: "A more relevant question is how much effort should be devoted to arguing against paradigms that are based on an insufficient understanding of the discipline. The situation is analogous to that in the natural sciences, where the theory of evolution is being challenged by religious fundamentalists propagating unscientific ‘alternative’ ‘models’, such as ‘creationism’ and ‘intelligent design’." As compared with the questions above this is of course very much a different thing. But when the peer reviewed criticism in general is considered so important, why doesn't anybody add it here in Wikipedia even when it exists? And in some cases pure rubbish perhaps could be removed. - But as I myself am a lay person, I will not do it, and especially because my english is so bad.--Urjanhai (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

As other editors have mentioned (above), these articles are often not edited by professionals in the field, but rather by generalists and amateurs. You have listed one source that seems to downplay Marcantonio's ideas. I think we need at least one more or (better) a text or general review that clearly discredits her ideas. Student7 (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

No one said that there is only one. There are many more, of course, and they could be found very easily (see, for example, [6], [7] - and both of these writers are are established sholars as well, and the former article, as well as the article by Juha Janhunen has been published by the Fenno-Ugric Society). And further still, Juha Janhunen who has written that, is one of the leading scholars in the world in this field which can eassily be seen in any sources (and then it is requiered something "better"!). And the text written by Janhunen was a general review of the subject. In Finland, as country where an uralic language is spoken, there is for sure quite a number of lay people, who, like myself, even as amateurs in the field, still follow the advances of, say, uralic linguistics, but here in wikipedia ignorance and lack of any humility before scientific knoweledge and scholarship in this field seems to prevail. Of course even the leading scholars do have different opinions, but in the case that threre is concensus that some piece of researsch is based on misunderstanding, still this kind of "research" keeps being cited here for years and no one bothers to add the numerous quite explicit critiquest that leave little left of the piece of "research" in question.

And still, according to the general principles of wikipedia, the information put in wikipedia should consist of general rewiews, rather than single marginal publications. And in this case we do have a general review written by one of the leading scholars in the world in this subject, and a single marginal publication, that has found no support whatsoever in any scientific publicity. And still, somehow, there suddenly is something wrong when these highly marginal views are questioned according to the views of vast majority of scholars and detailed ctirique and even if it is done by a general review. If you asked this of any fennougrist with an university postion, I would guess that 98 % of them would give you the same answer. --Urjanhai (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

But to the discussion above, of course, there must be peer rewiewed publications. But my point here was (and I repeat: my point), that even if there are, still marginal views rejected by the vast majority of scholars in some research field, these marginal views keep being cited here as word of god only because in some occasion someone has happened to add them here. And of course if I should want to question some of this kind of of marginal views, I ought to be careful and search all the evidence, that clearly will show, that the views are marginal. But because it is a quite huge work, especially for a lay person an using a language that is not native, and even those who are experts in the field and have better language skills, obviously have other things to do, just like I myself have as well, then it will be seen, if anything ever happens. But in cany case, however, I myself as a lay person and a citizen at least am very used to apply the general principles of source criticism in any everyday situation also anywhere else than in Wikipedia. And thus, in any case, I find it necessary - based on my personal ethics as a Wikipedia community member - at least to inform the community and make a short announcement even if I do not have enough time to do any bigger corrections an compile complete reference lists just now (because anyone, who has any source critisism, can then make his or her own conclusions). In finnish internet community one of the pioneers of it, Jukka Koprpela has compared wikipedia with writings in the toilet walls, and when I come across question like this I very must must agree with him in this respect.--Urjanhai (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

And to be sure, to this question above concerning Anatolia, I have no opinion whatsowever. --Urjanhai (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

And thus, this spesific discussion thread actually would not belong here at all. (And those who would understand all this from a few words probably never will read this.) But in any case, Quod scribi, scribi.--Urjanhai (talk) 12:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Geography section

Is there a reason to have this huge Geography section that's trying to duplicate Geography of Turkey. Obviously Turkey and Anatolia aren't exactly the same, depending on your definition Anatolia is from about two thirds of turkey to nearly all of Turkey, but their slimmer enough that it doesn't seam worth having two duplicate geography of "articles". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I think there's a political agenda that says that, except for the European part, Anatolia and Turkey are identical. If so, one of these, presumably, the geography here, should be mostly removed with a "main" template to Geography of Turkey. No point in maintaining two identical articles. Student7 (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Revert

Regarding this revert I don't understand the reason given in the edit summery, both descriptions mention Turkey, and I don't see what this has to do with the etymology of the word "Turkey". I originally changed because the "western two-thirds" definition isn't the only common one whereas as "Anatolia roughly corresponds to the Asian part of Turkey" (notice the word "roughly") is pretty much universally accepted. Look at the Definition section. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of an explanation of what this has to do with the etymology of the word "Turkey", I'm changing it back. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, the traditional definition of Anatolia only includes the western 2/3 of turkey, as i've made clear in the caption. Eastern Turkey generally corresponds to the Armenian Highland, while southeastern Turkey is northern Mesopotamia. I believe this is made clear in the "definition" section. Athenean (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Random lists of people

I really have no idea why I should spell it out. They are UNSOURCED. And WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. For example Arzawa is missing in the lead. The list is so random, I cannot go over it and fix mistakes. How many Persians inhabited Anatolia? Why does 1000 year Hittite rule has the same weight with brief Persian invasion? Cavann ^(talk) 22:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Arzawa was a coalition of peoples and most of them are still not defined and unknown, but the list is about the historical era. I don't understand what's your point to remove this all the way up. It's not a reasonble argument for removal if you feel that additions are needed. On the contrary if you claim that something is missing simply added it...Alexikoua (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. The list is unsourced. Besides all the problems above, it's also a very amateur way to do it. I cannot think of one respectable source that comes up with a random list in its overview.Cavann ^(talk) 18:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Anatolia vs. Asia minor

Maybe somebody can make some comments here: d:Talk:Q12824780? It is about merging interwikis for this enwiki article with those Wikipedia articles where is different iw, like ru:Малая Азия, for example. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 06:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

History: STRUCTURE BY KINGDOMS/CULTURES

Hi. I'm a newcomer to this page, so some might be upset by me suddenly introducing a structure/chronology to the Ancient Near East era.
I am quite well-versed in issues of history, and have arrived on this page as a USER, not as an editor, looking for a CONCISE OVERVIEW of PERIODS for the Anc. Near E in Asia Minor. The article offered NOTHING USEFUL, just - as often on WP - a long paragraph with no headlines or separation covering an intricate Bronze and Iron Age history, full of names familiar only to those who know the subject already. As often in such long amorphous paragraphs, once I put in the chronological structure, several bits of text and one illustration proved to be in the wrong place.
I know some editors react badly to such addition, although they are THE NORM in any proper work of reference. I would like those editors to consider that

• The "main file" dedicated to the history of Anatolia does not have such a chronological overview by cultures and kingdoms either, so there is no place on WP to find it;
• Should the view gain the upper hand that the structure (sub-chapters etc.) introduced by me must be removed for reasons of layout or overweight in the CONTENTS list, PLEASE at least replace the headings (marked by ===XXXX) with such which don't show in the "CONTENTS", but do so in the text, helping a) the common user find what he's looking up for, and b) future editors add whatever they want at the right chronological place (unlike the bits I found scattered around in the wrong place, which is to be expected if secondary headings are fully missing). That you can easily do by using :XXXX and ::XXXX.
  

Alternatively (or additionally), you can go and introduce this type of structure/chronology on the History of Anatolia page, either solution is good.
I haven't touched the later periods (Classical Antiquity and Middle Ages), which should though be done, too. The transfer from Hellenistic kingdoms to Roman, then Christian Byzantine, Arab Muslim, Seljuk Turkish, Armenian (Cilicia) and Crusader, Ottoman etc., etc. rule & culture is essential in understanding anything about this region, as it is anywhere. Anything else is just a useless pile-up of proper names & dates the reader only flies over.
I can easily imagine that the dates or other details I used, all taken from WP, might be somehow inaccurate. This is due to the respective WP pages, and I'd be happy as a frequent user of WP for you to correct it both here and there.
Thanks in the name of both users, and editors of WP who are otherwise put off by the masses of unstructured material. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)Arminden

What about the Seljuks?

"The inhabitants of this region spoke Greek until the region was conquered by the Ottoman Empire."

it was conquered by the seljuks then passed on the ottomans I believe.

A little criticism

The inhabitants of this region spoke Greek until the region was conquered first by the Seljuk Turks and later by the Ottoman Empire

---

This is not truth because Greek was the main language but not the only one.

We should change the sentence in:

The majority of the inhabitants of this region was conquered first by the Seljuk Turks and later by the Ottoman Empire.

What do you think?88.69.0.228 (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no such thing as Eastern Anatolia

The term "Eastern Anatolia" is a political, not geographical, term made up less than a century ago to replace "Armenia" with. Referring to all these ancient states that were never considered part of Anatolia during or long after their time is strongly inaccurate. This information should probably be removed and the political motivation of the term needs to be made more clear. --Steverci (talk) 04:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree with you regarding "Eastern Anatolia", however, if you look at the map, historical Anatolia is closer to the western two thirds of the asian part of Turkey, not just the western half. Athenean (talk) 06:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, the maps in the lead also need to be removed and replaced more accurate ones.

1895 American map

Even at the end of the 19th century after action to remove the word Armenia had already been taken, maps at the time didn't go further then half. And historically Anatolia has just referred to between the left third or fourth. Anatolia was originally meant to refer to land just across the sea.

6th century map

15th century map

--Steverci (talk) 04:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Huh? These old maps mean nothing. We already have two sources in the Definition section that define Anatolia in such a way that makes it equal to the western two-thirds of Turkey. And they both include Cappadocia in that definition. Athenean (talk) 05:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2017

CHANGE "Following the Armenian Genocide and establishment of the Republic of Turkey" to "Following World War I and establishment of the Republic of Turkey" because there is not enough historical proof (only political misguidance of Armenians and refusing historical facts) that any "so called" genocide occured.

Please do not be part of political games, just give facts. 185.82.253.155 (talk) 12:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done - you might want to read Armenian Genocide denial - Arjayay (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)