Talk:Anatolia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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 [1], 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)

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: [2]

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: [3]. 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)