Talk:Anatolia/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)ArmindenReply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]