Jump to content

Talk:Anatolia/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

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)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anatolia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Ancient?

"Ancient peoples in the region included Galatians, Hurrians, Scythians, Assyrians, Medes, Persians, Hattians, Cimmerians, Ionian Greeks, the Mongols and Arabs." Mongols and Arabs were not among the populations of Anatolia during the ancient period, as such the term "ancient" is used misleadingly here. The ancient period is considered to have ended by the beginning of the 7th century at the latest, and generally before. May I suggest rephrasing the sentence to begin with "Pre-turkic peoples", or if that is too controversial, "Previous". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princethatwaspromised (talk • contribs) 07:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC about map caption

Should we keep the current infobox map, but amend its caption to: The traditional definition of Anatolia within modern Turkey. Following the Armenian Genocide, the Republic of Turkey changed the definition of Anatolia to be all of Asian Turkey. This definition is widely used today in addition to the traditional definition.? Khirurg (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I want to see what happens with the map in the above discussion) before make an addition of the sort, otherwise things will just go from one farce to the next. Best.Resnjari (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Have requested administrative closure of this Rfc, per L3X1. Mathglot (talk) 00:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
You don't need an admin to close an RfC early - just remove the {{rfc}} template like this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Archive index

Just FYI: I've added a config to generate an alphabetical Archive index to show a table of all Archive topics, and Legobot has started to populate it. However, it's only indexing the threads on the main talk page, and not Archive 1-7, so I must have an error in the config someplace, very likely the mask. Once I get it fixed, I'll link the page from the Talk header. Mathglot (talk) 02:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Yay, Archive indexing is now live! You can view it by clicking the 'Index' link just above the Archive search box in the Talk header above. The Archive index table is sortable, so click the arrows in the column headers to sort by discussion name, or other values. Mathglot (talk) 06:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Historical Map in the Lede

One of the sources fails verification, and the other appears to be historical (both sources are historical). For WP:NPOV, my preference is for maps that do not draw boundary lines based on particular sources but rather show the landmass. This boundary line separates Armenia from Western Anatolia - it does not show the boundary line for Anatolia. I don't have access to the second source, but the vast majority of sources do not make this distinction. I think the editor who wrote the caption may have misinterpreted it.Seraphim System (talk) 05:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The map you removed is sourced. You need to do some reading regarding the traditional definition of Anatolia. And you'd better stop stalking my edits while you're at it. Khirurg (talk) 05:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I need the correct page number, is it on page 296? It is cited to page 296 here but the version of the book I have on Questia does not have a page 296. I checked all the maps in the book that is cited and I can't find any maps of "The traditional definition of Anatolia within modern Turkey". I'd better or what by the way? Seraphim System (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Uhhhhh, maybe you can't find it because the book itself is 296 pages. That's what 296 pages means. Reread the citation... Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
(ec) The book had 266 pages, not 296 [1]. I fixed it for you. Now you should go ahead and read it. You might be surprised by what you find. Khirurg (talk) 06:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Which citation system are you using that cites a book based on how many pages it has? I have reviewed all the maps in the book, the caption in our article is not in this book. There are eleven maps, which one should I be looking at? Seraphim System (talk) 06:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Like I said earlier, you have some reading to do. The definition of Anatolia is in the text, not the maps. Khirurg (talk) 06:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
As I noted above, the editors mostly likely misinterpreted the text. This text, like others about the historical period distinguish between Western Anatolia, Central Anatolia and Eastern Anatolia, because these areas are ruled by different people. This is not the same as what our caption says: "The traditional definition of Anatolia within modern Turkey".Seraphim System (talk) 06:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
There is absolutely no "misinterpretation" or any such nonsense. The sources are crystal clear. If you feel the sources are "misrepresented" feel free to take it up with the map creator. Khirurg (talk) 06:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a quote from the source? Seraphim System (talk) 07:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Seraphim System. Khestwol (talk) 15:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
The map that the user is attempting to add contradicts the article's definition of Anatolia. The new map misses a large portion of eastern Asian Turkey. Khestwol (talk) 08:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Did you read the article? The traditional definition of Anatolia is the western two thirds of Turkey, not the entirety of turkey, and this is well sourced. By the way, the way consensus works is if you want to make changes, it is on you to seek consensus. You can't replace a map that had been there forever and then demand "consensus". You are the one that needs to get consensus for your changes. Edit-warring will get you nowhere. Khirurg (talk) 14:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
The lede of this article states: Anatolia is often considered to be synonymous with Asian Turkey, which comprises almost the entire country;[7] its eastern and southeastern borders are widely taken to be the Turkish borders with neighboring Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria, in clockwise direction. Please show me on your map you insert in the infobox, where are Anatolia's borders with Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria? Khestwol (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

(unindent) The lede of the article also states Traditionally, Anatolia is considered to extend in the east to a line between the Gulf of Alexandretta and the Black Sea to the Armenian Highlands (Armenia Major). This region is now named and largely situated in the Eastern Anatolia Region of the far north east of Turkey and converges with the Lesser Caucasus – an area that was incorporated in the Russian Empire region of Transcaucasia in the 19th century.[5][6] Thus, traditionally Anatolia is the territory that comprises approximately the western two-thirds of the Asian part of Turkey.. That's what is shown in the map. Khirurg (talk) 15:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I am willing to improve the map on QGIS based on GPS coordinates available in sources and drawing multiple boundary lines, but the current map based on editorial opinion of where the boundary line should be drawn to separate Anatolia during some arbitrary and undefined historical period, cite to sources that fail verification is entirely unacceptable. This kind of map actually has to be well-sourced not just haphazardly drawn without any reference points and cited to two sources that fail verification. The caption also has to state that it is an approximation of a historical boundary. When I've worked on medieval british history I have taken great care to source the boundary lines as much as possible to known locations that are stated in the sources, not because I expected it to be challenged, but because it is obvious that a historical boundary line drawn by an editor should be sourced much more thoroughly and include more useful points then what is being defended in the current version of this article. I am extremely skeptical that this boundary runs along a perfectly straight diagonal line. As such it is not a traditional boundary as much as it is a rough hand drawn line that any editor is completely justified in challenging.Seraphim System (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
The map is perfectly well sourced. No amount of sophistry will change that. You're just pretending not to listen. Khirurg (talk) 23:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
If you are not interested in improving the article please stop cluttering the talk page. The boundary drawn in this map is not sourced, and there are plenty of sources and maps available to prove that the map was not drawn accurately.Seraphim System (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
As far as improving the article, I have over 100 contribs. All you have is edit-warring. As far as cluttering the talkpage, I believe that applies to you. The map is perfectly well sourced. If you continue behaving disruptively, there are ways to deal with that. Khirurg (talk) 01:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Might I also add that the map that Seraphim System is edit-warring into the article is much less specific than the current one. Worse yet, it's not even sourced. There's nothing that says, whether it be in the image description or in some kind of source, exactly which part of that NASA satellite picture (which is all that it is) is Anatolia. For example, the satellite picture also includes the Armenian Highlands (or Western Armenia) which was renamed "Eastern Anatolia" by the Turkish Republican government, an entirely fabricated name for a geographical region that was created to conceal the fact that Armenians have once lived on those lands before the Armenian Genocide. Heck, one can even point to Syria and think that it's Anatolia for all that we know. So we shouldn't have our readership guess where Anatolia lies. The map we have right now is much more accurate because it's sourced and more specific. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Eastern Anatolia is not a fabricated name, it a name that is has been widely accepted by literally hundreds of academic sources for a century. The fact that you think it is a "fabricated name" is a fair indication that you are not able to edit this article neutrally based on WP:RS. I'm reviewing the talk page and I see discussion between Khiruig (under an old account name) and Meowy (the LTA account that was indeff'd during the Turkey RfC) and I see another indeff'd sockpuppet who started a section "There is no such thing as Eastern Anatolia". The sources I have checked fail verification. These are not good signs, no one should have to edit war over your restoring an inaccurate map that is falsely cited.Seraphim System (talk) 02:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I really don't understand what Meowy has to do with this. But whatever. At any rate, it's a fabricated name because it was not used before the genocide of the Armenians (prior to 1915). What is "Eastern Anatolia" today was the Armenian Highlands, a term which is actually still used today. The term itself is incorrect because Eastern Anatolia is to the east of the Anatolian plateau. This once again proves my point that the NASA satellite photograph doesn't specify this for us. Instead, those who look at the map have to play a guessing game as to where Anatolia is. Either that, or they will think everything in the photograph constitutes Anatolia which might be even more likely. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

(unindent) The sources do not fail verification. If you are incapable or unwilling of checking them that does not mean they have failed verification. Making false claims of "failed verification" is highly disruptive. Khirurg (talk) 02:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Étienne Dolet Would you then agree to a different map that draws the boundary more accurately? The book it is sourced to does use the term Eastern Anatolia, basically every WP:RS does. This is not to erase the genocide. Archaeologists use it, classicists use it - I think it would be better to stick to the sources, rather then opine about the Turkish government at every opportunity. Saying it is fabricated is WP:FRINGE. Regardless of what the Turkish Republic calls it, that is the term used by sources. But there is a historical boundary - it is not, however, accurately drawn in this map. I will use the source it is currently cited to and others to draw it more accurately.Seraphim System (talk) 03:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC about infobox map

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The consensus of the participants in the discussion is that the existing map on the article (File:AnatolieLimits.jpg) is preferable to the proposed replacements. There is no prejudice against starting a new RFC if a new/"better" map is produced, but let's try to leave the personal attacks and sniping out of the next one. Primefac (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Should the map currently in the infobox be changed? Anatolia and its provinces have had many boundaries throughout a long history. The map currently in the lede one is non-specific as to the historical period it is referring to, with a very poorly worded caption.

Based on the 1911 Britannica map below, it also seems the hand drawn boundary line of the current infobox map was not drawn accurately. I've checked the given citations and they fail verification. It is a bit hard to see, but Britannica has numbered the regions — the result is similar to the high-quality 2nd century AD map below.

I would like to replace this with a map that is attractive, accurate, with clear readable labels and a defined time period. I'm not set on any particular date or period.

  • Option 1 2nd century AD
    Option 1
    2nd century AD
  • Option 2 1st century AD
    Option 2
    1st century AD
  • Option 3 1911 Britannica map
    Option 3
    1911 Britannica map
  • Option 4 1907 map
    Option 4 1907 map
  • Option 5
    Option 5

NOTE: Option 4 and 5 added after being proposed by François Robere below. Seraphim System (talk) 06:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC) Seraphim System (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

break

  • None of the above, keep current map. The current map is sourced. Of the above maps, the first do not tell the reader where is Anatolia, rather they just show the Eastern Provinces of the Roman EMpire, including Syria, Armenia, and others. The third map is of very low quality and based on a 100+ year old source. @Seraphim: You've been fighting this map issue for over 4 months now. It is especially disruptive that you keep re-igniting old disputes, such as this one, after months. WP:DROPTHESTICK. Khirurg (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep current map per Khirurg. The first two are Roman Maps of Asia Minor. The third one is way too old and discombobulated. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Neither. The pen-like mark on the current mark is bad, but there are better options than the above: 1 2 François Robere (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep current map - The two Roman province maps are useless - and do not contain Anatolia. The Britannica map doesn't contain decent boundaries and has legibility issues. Constructively - I suggest you focus on sourcing on what the eastern border (which seems to be the only one in some dispute in the sources - the maximal definition using the current Turkish border (which is present in the map) with other possibilities based on actual geography or past geopolitical entities) of Anatolia is - and then update the map (and a hand-drawn line is perfectly OK if this is an inexact border).Icewhiz (talk) 06:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
@Icewhiz: I just added François Robere's two proposals to the gallery, they seem to cover the points you make. It's not an inexact border — it's not a border at all, it's a geographic term. I've never seen it drawn on a modern map anywhere but this article, the boundary with Syria is a bit different.Seraphim System (talk) 06:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
My comment applies to the two additional maps as well. Geographic features have (often contested) borders - we should illustrate them. According to one political use - Anatolia is all of modern Asian Turkey. There were previous political as well as geographic divisions - and our map should make this clear - not obsfucate by showing previous political boundaries of an arbitrary age (and why Roman empire? I'd go with the Hittites - e.g. this map - which I object to on the same grounds as the others). You should be focusing in this discussion on the possible definitions of Anatolia (of which there seem to be a few) - and then update the map.Icewhiz (talk) 06:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
The map you are describing would be illegible. I looked into it already. There are some Persian options and Crusade era divisions as well. I can't make a map that represents all of them in one image. I think it might be better to not include a map image in the infobox, and try a selection of images like the Jerusalem infobox.Seraphim System (talk) 07:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely not. This is a geography article. Khirurg (talk) 16:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
It's not just a geography article. The term Anatolia has had one meaning in (thousands of) mainstream WP:RS since the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. Some sources acknowledge a geographic boundary, but it's not clear why that has to be the infobox image instead of a representative sample including a Cappadocia landscale, Nemrut Dag, Pamukkale and other images. I want the infobox image to be interesting and informative also, but this isn't. A selection of images would give more information about Anatolia than a carelessly scribbled line on a modern map.Seraphim System (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Keep current map It is clear, and it shows the traditional definition of Anatolia as understood historically and internationally. In modern Turkey there is another definition in use -- but this is covered adequately by the article. These other options really... are just much worse maps. Two of them have tiny text and are quite unclear unless you zoom in, another one would make it appear to a reader who is skimming that coastal Syria is part of Anatolia (?!!), another one is set in the very specific time period of the late Middle Ages and seems a bit Turkocentric, and the last (option 4) seems to suggest Cyprus is part of Anatolia. The current one isn't perfect but none of these would be an improvement. --Calthinus (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC) Vote changed to New map should be created after being persuaded by GGT's post. The new map should be well-sourced and show both the boundaries of both the current/Turkish and older definitions. --Calthinus (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
No map would be an improvement over a map that has proven to be inaccurate based on WP:RS. That part of Syria is a complication that can not be resolved by trying to present this is a boundary that respects the boundaries of the modern states of Turkey and Syria — that region near Antioch is historically part of the province of Cilicia — the boundary drawn in the current map is not a boundary that has ever existed, in any historical period. It's an invention of editors. This is a complete disregard for accuracy and reliable sources, and not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work.Seraphim System (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Seraphim System There are currently two sources for that being the "traditional definition" on the page. To be fair they do not seem to have quotes and I'm too busy to investigate them at the moment-- are you suggesting the sources are falsified? Additionally, Spiridon Ion Cepleanu maybe could also help by elaborating what sources he used when making his map, the current one. --Calthinus (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
The source is discussed below, and two additional maps have been posted that prove the boundary is drawn incorrectly. Neither of the cited sources actually have a map, it is an editor's interpretation of text.Seraphim System (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
@Seraphim System: my apologies, I was lazy. Ehhh well the page number thing was disheartening. Khirurg did find other text currently on the wiki page that seems to support the map. If supporting quotes should be added to those citations-- and the cites changed to those (namely, Adalian and Grierson) then it seems the map should stay-- or if supporting quotes are found in the currently cited sources. Frankly I have no idea and don't care to investigate this myself, but the onus is always on the side that wants to add or make use of a sources to verify it. If it turns out this doesn't check out, I would suggest finding sources that can be agreed upon and making a map yourselves (or find some plausible third party-- I'm not appropriate myself-- to make it). --Calthinus (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
That makes absolutely no sense. There is a definition of the region, although maybe it's not 100% precise (but that is true about all places). It's just that some people don't like it. Too bad. Khirurg (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The article itself states that Anatolia was traditionally defined as the western two-thirds of Turkey, it is now often considered to be synonymous with Asian Turkey (the interchangeability in modern literature is clear enough even with a cursory look). As rightly pointed out above, this is a geography article. That means that it is not a history article and that it should primarily reflect the currently used geographical definition, while not eschewing the historical ones, as in any other geographical article. Personal approval/disapproval of the redefinition of the term should not come into play here, and the modern definition should be given at least as much weight as the traditional one. The current map with the current caption is thus a no-no. I suspect that any of the historical maps would be an improvement. No map would be the best option IMO. Also acceptable, but not preferable to that, would be to use the current map (if it is indeed reasonably sourced) with a modified caption that makes it clear that a) the modern definition of Anatolia is Asian Turkey (and the map should probably be modified to highlight the modern borders of Turkey in the same manner and with a different colour, to reinforce the distinction; in fact I would prefer this to having no map/other options) and b) the historical definitions in themselves were variable and the map is just an example of such definitions. --GGT (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
    • The caption of the current map clearly says that this is the "traditional" definition of Anatolia, which is exactly right. Now, the "modern" definition of Anatolia, or as it should be more appropriately be called, the "genocidal" definition, is nothing more than an attempt by the Turkish government to erase the term "Armenian Highland". It is not based on geography, archeology or history (except for the genocide). It is entirely unhistorical and fueled by nothing more than nationalist paranoia. As noted in the article (ref 13), it is for this exact reason that the academic community is growing increasingly uncomfortable with the "modern" definition, and moving back to the traditional definition, which is grounded in history and geography, as opposed to genocide denial and modern nationalism. Khirurg (talk) 20:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
From the Britannica article on Anatolia to the east and south by the Southeastern Taurus Mountains. (Option 4 shows this geographic feature). This has nothing to do with the genocide and it is not a "traditional definition", the technical geographic boundary of the plateau is drawn incorrectly. That's it. No amount of aggressive ranting about genocide and nationalism changes that. And now unless someone else redraws it, we have to keep the inaccurate map in a high-traffic article? I would redraw it, but based on the comments here I can't figure out what editors want — only that they have some problems with the five maps that have already been proposed. Maybe one of these editors can propose an alternative that is acceptable. Seraphim System (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
I think the 1907 map is fine, but if editors are set on inclusing the modern boundaries on the same map, my advice would be to use reference points from these WP:RS maps to draw this accurately using coordinates instead of just "winging" it. Or, if no one wants to do that right now, then I suggest we replace it at least temporarily with a non-map image.Seraphim System (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
The consensus so far is to keep the current map. And even if there is no consensus, the current map stays per WP:STATUSQUO. Sorry, but the fact that you really just don't like the current map is not a valid reason to remove it. The 1907 is cartographically archaic and contains numerous errors. Khirurg (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm making a better map, but judging by the tone of these comments I'm very worried I am just wasting my time. I would have preferred to replace it with a set of images. I am concerned that you don't seem at all concerned that the map is factually inaccurate and low-quality (doesn't show lakes, doesn't show rivers, doesn't label major features, doesn't show mountains, etc.) and yet continue to be very vocal, almost to the point of bludgeoning this RfC. I'm also upset that editors have voted to keep this map without even consulting reliable sources to see if it was accurate.Seraphim System (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
The map is perfectly correct and well-sourced. If you can't be bothered to read the sources that is not anyone else's problem. Criticizing the map because of...lakes and rivers sounds just like trying to find any little excuse to criticize it. Khirurg (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
I did read the Mitchell source — do you mean the Anatolian Highlands? because that is the only discussion I see in the book, and it is a discussion of historical boundaries. I have read other sources for the geographic boundaries and the consensus above is moving towards redrawing the map along those lines. Can you give us the quote so we all know what you are talking about, instead of just repeating yourself?Seraphim System (talk) 00:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Other sources? Which ones? Care to share them with us? Look, you've been obsessing over this map since 2017. It's not going anywhere. Drop it. Khirurg (talk) 02:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Nevermind, if you want to post a quote for us to discuss you are free to do that, otherwise I'm not going to continue responding.Seraphim System (talk) 02:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Sometimes it is a direct accusation of genocide denial, sometimes it is establishing guilt by association, but it never fails to materialise: it is a very clever tactic to try to "win" an argument by associating users or arguments with genocide denial and appealing to emotion. Very clever and equally disruptive. Once again, it has been deployed in this discussion, in Khirurg's response to my comment about the modern definition of Anatolia, emphasising that this is in fact the genocidal definition, and in EtienneDolet's "advisory" to Seraphim System, which one might almost perceive as a threat. I am going to call this out as I do not intend this sort of rhetoric to take hold of discussions here. I understand the sensitivities of the users here, but please consider this a friendly warning.
  • Now let's get this straight: yes, the modern definition of Anatolia was established as a direct result of the Armenian Genocide and the attempt of the Ottoman and Turkish governments to prevent the use of the term "Armenia" and "Armenian Highlands". These are facts, and these facts ought to be presented in detail, and the fact that the established definition of Anatolia has changed needs to be made clear in the lead and in the map.
  • But this does not change the fact that this definition of Anatolia, and the terms Eastern and Southeastern Anatolia, are very much established in the literature now. We may disapprove personally of why these became established, you may say that this is "entirely unhistorical and fueled by nothing more than nationalist paranoia", and I do personally agree with that analysis. But whether we agree with or not, established they are, and we have to reflect that, and we have to reflect that in the map if we are to avoid POV issues. If you wish to act on the idea that the modern definition is just wrong, go right this great wrong elsewhere (Khirurg's argument is a perfect example of the bullet point on acting to "explain the "truth" or "reality" of a current or historical political, religious, or moral issue" in this guideline). And please take the ranting and pontification about the genocide there as well. This is not a forum to pursue such causes.
  • And Khirurg, thanks for pointing out to that point about the "changing literature" in the article. Unfortunately I didn't get the memo about art historians writing about art history (check the source content) being authoritative sources on changing trends in geographical nomenclature. This source seems to have been cherrypicked so hard that the confirmation bias is too obvious. Unfortunately the Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia or the European Environmental Agency seem to be off these current trends?
  • I must thank Seraphim System for collecting various sources on the definitions of Anatolia, which further reinforce my points. Now, I understand and appreciate her point about the fact that the current map has incorrect boundaries set for the plateau, and this does mean that the current map is not acceptable. I am looking forward to seeing the alternative that she is working on, and hope that it will be impeccably based on sources and thus acceptable to all. --GGT (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
    • No one accused anyone of genocide denial, either directly or by implication, so please keep these dirty dishonest tactics and "friendly warnings" to yourself. On the other hand, there is one user who has been obsessing over this map since 2017 (trying to remove it and replace with one that includes "Eastern Anatolia"), and this user does have a long history of disruptive behavior at Armenian Genocide related topics. As for the accusations of "cherry-picking", that is one of the favored tactics of intellectually dishonest people of dismissing a source. Old as the hills, seen it 100 times. However, the source you accuse of being "cherry picked" is peer-reviewed. You may not like it, but it's not going to go away. Over the coming years, you can certainly expect more and more sources to move away from "Eastern Anatolia". By the way GGT, I can't help but notice that every time Serpahim gets involved in some dispute on Turkish-related topics, you show up soon afterwards, even though you have never edited the article before. You guys wouldn't be coordinating off-wiki or anything like that, would you? I mean, that would be...dishonest. Khirurg (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Your personal comment does not merit a response and is... inaccurate, to say the least, but I don't want that the water is muddied for anyone will reading this, so I will explain how I got to this page so that the disruption is minimised: Seraphim happened to comment on an article that is in my watchlist (Occupation of Smyrna), a comment with I actually happened to disagree with. Then I had a look at her contribs and saw this discussion, which, as you well know, falls within my areas of interest.
      • Now, will you please either: a) file a complaint for meatpuppetry (or "off-wiki canvassing", although "coordinating" definitely means more than that) if you're really convinced about your accusation or b) kindly strike through that bit of your comment. I am afraid you are not getting away with throwing around inflammatory accusations of meatpuppetry like this.
      • Talking of puppets, that bit that you are defending happens to have been added by a sockpuppet. I don't know what your understanding of peer review is, but an article on art history is peer reviewed by other art historians and is not an authoritative source on trends in geographical nomenclature. Neither would it be sufficient: WP:EXTRAORDINARY. And now, let's not pretend not to see the elephant in the room. Who looks for sources about the name of Anatolia in art history articles? I mean seriously? No one does that. And it's not as if that sock was particularly interested in Armenian art or used this article to actually contribute on its main topic. No, to be able to find this type of source, you need to set out with a thesis to support and look hard for a source that supports your view. And let's be honest, you need to be in quite a bit of despair if you end up having to cite a footnote in an art history article. Let's not spew accusations of intellectual dishonesty and stories of expansive experience, you've been editing articles like this long enough to know this as well as I do. Anyway, this art history article business is just absurd, it did make my day :) --GGT (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
        • Once again, I did not accuse you of anything, I just asked you a question, which you answered with extreme defensiveness. Just following contribs, were you? Were also just "following contribs" when you showed up at this AfD [2] of an article you had never edited before? If not, you just have to say so. As for striking comments, I believe that honor goes first to you, with your accusations of accusations of genocide denial ("very clever and very disruptive"). You are not getting away with that, rest assured. As for the old "the source was added by a sock" canard, again that is a favorite tactic of those who seek to remove a source on specious grounds (interestingly, Seraphim used exactly the same canard a while back [3] - weird how that works no?). If you feel the source is unreliable, remove it (probably not a good idea, though). But it is perfectly legitimate for users in good standing to "adopt" an edit made by a banned user if they feel the edit benefits wikipedia. WP:BAN is not damnatio memoriae. A source is reliable or not on itw own merits, not based on who added it. Anyway, like I said, if you feel the source does not meet WP:RS, feel free to remove it. Khirurg (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
          • "Questioned", not accused, eh? Goodness me. Yeah, it's totally OK to insinuate meatpuppetry, and it's totally soooooo questionable that I get "defensive" right? And I have no freaking idea about whose contribs I followed to your AfD (might have been off your contribs actually, or Seraphim's or whoever's, checking people's contribs is how I learn about discussions that pertain to my areas of interest, got a problem with that?), but this is certainly not your place to ask. And you totally haven't accused anyone of genocide denial in the past, you totally don't have a sarcastic style with inflammatory undertones as was the case with that comment, you totally haven't received a warning about your disruptive WP:ASPERSIONS before and you totally aren't doing it again. Goodness me. Would report this load of whatever to ANI but I will take a good long wikibreak from any interactions like this. Have fun bullying others. --GGT (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
            • Oh, but it's ok for you to insinuate dirty tactics, "Sometimes it is a direct accusation of genocide denial, sometimes it is establishing guilt by association, but it never fails to materialise: it is a very clever tactic to try to "win" an argument by associating users or arguments with genocide denial and appealing to emotion. Very clever and equally disruptive. Once again, it has been deployed in this discussion, in Khirurg's response to my comment about the modern definition of Anatolia,", to make snide comments about "go right this great wrong elsewhere else" and "take the ranting and pontification about the genocide there as well". Yeah, goodness. And now accusations of "bullying"? Go ahead, run to ANI. I will bring up every snide comment and aspersions you have made here and will welcome the scrutiny on them. I have all the diffs. You do know what unclean hands and WP:BOOMERANG are, right? Khirurg (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
For one, nothing I’m arguing here is my own personal opinion. In fact, my opinions are in accordance with what the article already states when it comes to Eastern Anatolia. The reliable sources also demonstrate how the term is now being questioned in the academic world today and how this term has and always will be to propogate the Turkish government narrative that Armenia never existed and that the Armenians have never even lived on those lands to begin with. Consequently, if there’s anyone wronging great truths, it would be us by adopting the Turkish government’s definition of what is or isn’t Anatolia. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Another point: A map showing the "modern" definition of Anatolia is trivial, since "modern" Anatolia is just the Asian part of Turkey. Any map of Turkey would thus do. To create a map of "modern" Anatolia is trivial and uninformative. There is a large number of articles that have geographical maps of Turkey. However, for the traditional definition of Anatolia, this is the only article where we could show this definition. If we replace the map of the traditional definition, with one of the "modern" definition, then we have completely removed from Wikipedia every trace of the traditional definition. This may please certain editors, but it is a disservice to our readers and unencyclopedic. Khirurg (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually this whole debate is a bit surreal. The current map, by showing modern boundaries, does show the "modern" definition of Anatolia. I find it highly ironic that it is the maps proposed by Seraphim that do not show "modern" Anatolia. I really don't see an issue here with the current map. Maybe could use some fine tuning on the Eastern boundary, but that's is a minor, technical issue. Khirurg (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for this, this is much closer to my original point. The point is that, the modern boundaries of Turkey also need to be highlighted in the map, preferably in a different colour, and the inaccuracies of this map need to be fixed. This was why I said that the current map is actually preferable to historical maps, and that it would be OK with these tweaks and a modified caption. EtienneDolet, you are right in terms of the facts, but this does not change the fact that this definition of Anatolia is very common in literature today. It is no longer just the Turkish government's definition, it is the Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia's definition, it is the European Environmental Agency's definition... in short, it is the modern definition. That might be unfortunate, but that's where WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS comes in. --GGT (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Now, now, now gentlemen. We can all tone down the tensity here and focus on what we all have in common which is actually more than you would think. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Extended discussion

Regarding the sources for the current map, it seems the source of the confusion is the Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary - it is correct to start at the Gulf and end at the Sea. But it is an eyesore, and perhaps more importantly, the way it was drawn without additional reference points improperly runs through Cappadocia (which was part of Anatolia historically, as verified by the 1911 map). Option 1 also shows the historic boundary with Syria for a specific period, instead of randomly drawing a historic boundary over a modern map. Seraphim System (talk) 01:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Not really, it just shows a bunch of Roman provinces without telling us which ones are in Anatolia. The time period is also arbitrary. And it does not show boundaries of current states, which is undesirable. A modified version of the current map along the lines of Option 1, or the option 1 map with the boundary of Anatolia explicitly shown and modern state boundaries as well would be acceptable. But option 1 by itself is inferior to the current map. Khirurg (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Anatolia today is the Asian part of Turkey. I have a few options for historic boundaries, but they are all going to arbitrary — this may actually be too complex for a single infobox image. I was thinking of something like the Jerusalem article because I couldn't pick any one image that was representative. Seraphim System (talk) 02:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Are there any other options? I can't tell where Anatolia starts and ends on options 1 and 2 and option 3 is an ugly, hard-to-read mess. And the current map is apparently inaccurate, which is obviously less than ideal. Dbrote (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Dbrote: Two more options were proposed and have been added to the gallery. Seraphim System (talk) 06:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Both those options are terrible as they do not show geogrpahic features, are arbitrary, do not show modern borders and are of poor quality. Khirurg (talk) 06:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I am adding WP:RS and quotes here as I work on the modified map: User:Seraphim_System/map. Editors are free to keep an eye as I update. I am labeling the major rivers, and significant geographic features like the Cilician gates and mountains. I added the modern state boundaries as editors requested, and the base map I am using shows features like mountain ranges which are important to explain the geographic boundary. We can continue discussing here to avoid cluttering the survey section. Seraphim System (talk) 02:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to generate a new map. That seems to be the best option for getting an image that is both accurate and informative. Dbrote (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Going through all this dizzying discussion, much as been said on boundaries but a lot of it is either synthesis or original research and relates to definitions on Asia Minor or Roman Provinces on the area and not specifically Anatolia. Ottoman definitions of Anatolia in the late Ottoman period as outlined by intellectual Şemseddin Sami (cited in Gürpinar, p. 117. [4]) were that it goes from the area around Iskenderun (including the city) to the Euphrates river forming the boundary between Anatolia (which lay east of that river) and Kurdistan/Armenia (which lay west of that river) and then it continued to the area around Trabzon (including the city). Sami is interesting because he wrote the Ottoman era encyclopedia and was a respected intellectual, and it was before the politicization of the Armenian question and World War One where definitions began to shift due to politics, events and other matters. Also historian Patricia Blessing and Rachel Goshgarian have a good chapter [5] on Anatolia and geographic definitions of the medieval period (their work published in 2017). Basically the current map in the inbox would need two main adjustments. It would need to include Iskendurun, the boundary going along the Amanus mountains, excluding Antakya and land below traditionally considered part of historic Syria and it ought to include the area around Kilis and Gaziantep and the line running along the Euphrates river with the Trabzon part being ok. These definitions of Anatolia roughly correspond to where the old linguistic boundaries between Greek, Aramaic, Armenian lay with the one of later centuries where Turkish, Arabic, Armenian and Kurdish lay, after the large linguistic and religious changes of Anatolia happened after Manzikert.Resnjari (talk) 11:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
In general we should avoid outdated unreliable sources written by representatives of various national movements. In terms of historical and modern geography Frasheri's geographic description is controversial and should be treated with heavy precaution.Alexikoua (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Nah, not outdated, otherwise if we go by that then Seraphim's reasons for scrapping the current map are all applicable. @Alexikoua: i note to you that Şemseddin Sami was respected Ottoman intellectual and your personal opinions about the man do not apply (need some evidence for your personal claims about it being "controversial" otherwise its made up). He wrote the Ottoman encyclopedia and reflected the view of Anatolia before it became politicized. Going by you comment looks like you didn't bother to read Patricia Blessing and Rachel Goshgarian as well. Also out of all the "geographic definitions" or sources given here, Sami's most closely resembles the current map in the infobox which editors who mainly edit Greek and Armenian related topics seem to be in favour of keeping. Additionally it is cited in Gürpinar p.117 (published 2013) [6] and that source is wp:reliable. I don't see you bringing anything here though.Resnjari (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, 19th century Ottoman "intellectuals"/Albanian nationalists are heavily outdated and fail WP:RS on multiple counts. There is simply no way we are going to use Sami Frasheri to make a map, anything else for that matter. Khirurg (talk) 04:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
@Khirurg: Sami was an Ottoman patriot, not a "Albanian nationalist". He intersected both the Ottoman world and the Albanian one. But separate to that the current map most resembles Sami's description of Anatolia geographic contours -incase you didn't read the source. @Seraphim System:, @GGT: according to Khirurg, Sami's description does not apply though it resembles the current map in the infobox. Its would make the current map in the infox POV then? Thpughts, as i don't oppose its complete removal then until if possible something that is not POV can replace it if at all.Resnjari (talk) 04:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Hahaha, nice try. There is nothing "POV" about the map. Just a case of WP:JDL by some people (one person, actually). Anyway, just forget Frasheri, we are never going to use him, here or anywhere. Because he's from the 19th century and has a strong pro-Ottoman and Albanian POV. Just forget it. Khirurg (talk) 04:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes there is, its outsourced original research. @Khirurg:, you seem not to have read the source. Its in Gürpinar (that meets wp:reliable citing Sami). And its in that book Sami's cited description most resembles the current map. Irony of the comments above, yes indeed. Sami, a Ottoman intellectual reflected the Ottoman view prior to WW1 and so on. I don't see what the issue is here. As for someone being or having "a strong pro-Ottoman and Albanian POV", oh please the same can be said of multiple Greek academics having a Greek POV that some editors push from time to time. Sami was a Ottoman patriot, he had a love of the Ottoman world and Islam, we can't hold that against him.Resnjari (talk) 04:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
No, see none of that matters. Because as WP:RS tells us, a source must be published by a publisher with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sami Frasheri fails on that count completely. He also fails WP:RS AGE. So, I don't care what his definition of Anatolia is. I don't care at all. It doesn't matter, because he does not meet WP:RS. And that's all that matters. Khirurg (talk) 05:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Now I know what you're going to say: Gurpinar cites Frasheri, and is RS. But you're wrong there too. Gurpinar does not define Anatolia, nor does he endorse Frasheri's definition. He is merely describing it to his readers. Which makes sense since the book is about various Ottoman intellectuals. So this material could be added to the Sami Frasheri article, but not here. Gurpinar is a source about Frasheri, not Anatolia. Khirurg (talk) 05:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
ok, ok so you made me revise my comment. :) Gürpinar does not give a definition but cites one from the Ottoman era. My thing is Sami was no upstart or novice. The guy wrote an Ottoman encyclopedia and it was before the whole WW1 era stuff and politicization. But there is an irony: Sami's description of Anatolia's eastern boundary resembles most the current map then anything provided which mentions both Anatolia and a eastern boundary. That infobox map lacks any citations or sources to know what its based on, so its original research and guesswork. Plus the editor who made the map has retired their account, so a ping for comment is useless to ascertain what its based on. I also provided Patricia Blessing and Rachel Goshgarian, its a detailed scholarly overview on this issue - its useful for the discussion here. My thing is that the current map needs a small adjustment in the Iskendurun area and inclusion of the Kilis and Gaziantep area following a Euphrates river boundary, areas that are not even included as a Kurdistan or Armenia in regional/historic terms anyway, but excluded on the infobox map. Its where the Byzantine world and Greek speaking world bordered the Aramaic and Armenian worlds and later replaced after Manzikert with a Turkic bordering on Arabic, Kurdish and Armenian worlds. I am also aware there were communities on both sides of the Euphrates from the ethnic groups. Unless you got other ideas, i.e like sources?Resnjari (talk) 05:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Tell you what: Since Frasheri was a notable Ottoman intellectual of his time, we could add his description of Anatolia in the Definition section (with proper attribution, e.g. "According to the 19th Century ottoman scholar Sami Frasheri..."). But to base the map in the infobox on? No. There are too many modern sources for that. I also strongly disagree about Kilis and Antep: These are geographically on the Mesopotamian plain, not the Anatolian plateau. Ditto Iskenderun, it is part of Greater Syria (as are Kilis and Antep btw). By the way, you are wrong about the map being unsourced. It was made by Cplakidas and I distinctly remember he based it on several sources. You may wish to contact him for further information. But the map is definitely sourced. Khirurg (talk) 05:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I looked into it and the map is produced by editor Spiridon Ion Cepleanu (his userpage says he is retired) and not Cplakidas. Also there are no sources given for the map and what its based on [7]. I understand what you mean on the Mesopotamian plain/Anatolian plateau matter, but Anatolia also had cultural and linguistic definitions that include small areas on its peripheries like Iskendurun and it going to the Euphrates river. With Iskendurun, eeven in a geographic sense its whole gulf area is included in Anatolia (part of the Eastern Anatolian fault line) with the Amanus being its southern boundary [8]. Here is another scholarly overview of geographic definitions relating to Anatolia: Johannes Koder, 2017 (citing the ancient and Byzantine) [9]. An additional note, both Iskenderun and Gaziantep fall in Cilicia and not historic Syria, Astourian, 2011, p. 67. [10]. Linguistic divide also follows the Amanus mountains p. 368. [11].Resnjari (talk) 07:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Why is it necessary to say Sami Frasheri? His map, which reflected older Ottoman views of the boundary, is cited in modern RS-- among others. --Calthinus (talk) 08:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Can we merge Armenian Highland into this article? Seraphim System (talk) 06:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Not saying just Sami, but he was one of the most prominent Ottoman intellectuals of the time and he wrote the Ottoman encyclopedia which goes on about geography. Plus its before WW1 when the Ottoman/Turkish view redefined what the geographic contours of Anatolia. I added some other academic sources here in the talk citing ancient and Byzantine definitions etc and they to roughly correspond to Sami. They are similar to the current map but a few tweaks are needed in the Iskenderun and Gaziantep areas.Resnjari (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
You mean, can we delete Armenian Highland? Absolutely not. Khirurg (talk) 06:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok, the only sources that discuss this are saying that the vast majority of academic literature is using the term "Anatolia" wrong and what they mean is Asia Minor. If I'm going to draw some kind of geological boundary I need some nonpolitical source from geology or some such field to base it on. Otherwise I don't see any justification to draw one political boundary (Six Vilayets) over the dozen other possible boundaries that could be drawn here (like "Achaemenid Anatolia") — this term is used without any precise meaning in literature. There was never any one ethnic group living in Anatolia — sorry, but this is fact. If there is a geological boundary let's draw it, but I don't see any reason why the infobox of this article should erase anyone's history (this includes Circassians, Laz, Persians, Turks, Armenians, Bronze Age Mesopotamians and the Anatolian Neanderthal) — barring some kind of geological boundary based in science, all the ethnic groups of Anatolia need to be represented on this map.Seraphim System (talk) 06:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Seraphim, the late Ottoman view prior to WW1 of Anatolia was that it went up to the Euphrates river [12] and NOT beyond. Even older definitions hold to similar lines cited by modern scholars [13], [14] so there is real content to go on.Resnjari (talk) 07:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Sami Frasheri was a representative of a specific nationalist movement (there is no need to present evidence just look at the lede of his article). Needless to say that such views should be avoided and are far from considered wp:RS (the supposed definition of Greater Albania, Greater Chameria etc. that contradicts even Ottoman administrative standards). At least he admitted at his latest work that Ioannina should be part of Greece and not Albania. Nationalist figures in general are not wp;RS even if they represent our personal POVAlexikoua (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
You keep pressing on about nationalism, but going by your comments i doubt you have consulted the source, nor the others and are merely recycling your own personal views of Sami. Sami viewed himself both as an Ottoman and Albanian and i see no problem with this and nor did he. Sami did not refer to a Greater Albania, as one there was no Albanian state for a Greater Albania irredenta to be conceived and two all areas from Kosovo to Preveza were sovereign Ottoman land, encompassing Albanian inhabited areas in the Balkans under one country. Remember Greece came after through war and irredentist nationalist claims. Sami was before. Also this claim about Sami claiming Yanina belongs to Greece, what is this based on, fact, fiction, personal POV ?Resnjari (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Sami was a representative of a specific national movement (I assume you know that) and his view is biased. I'm sorry but such authors can't be neutral in terms of geo-politic analysis even if they represent the Albanian or Greek national view .Alexikoua (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Correction: He was representative of two national movements, both the Albanian and Turkish. You seem not grasp what i have been saying here. The current map that is in the infobox has no sources given for what its based upon by the person who compiled it. Many here want to keep it without however providing sources. This whole thread exists because of that issue. Unlike many in here i have actually provided sources and Sami is not the only only one (see comments above). He is however representative of the Ottoman view before the events of WW1 and the politicization of what Anatolia consists or how it is defined in later times. The Ottoman Turkish view is more or less in line with older definitions. Also out of all the sources Sami most closely resembles the current map eastern geographic boundary. Irony, yes. How you want to view is up to but it is what it is.Resnjari (talk) 11:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately there is a large scale discrepancy of what you claim about Fraseri: "that he is a representative of th Ottoman view etc.". Actually he completely ignored Ottoman administration and provided his own definition geographic definition in various cases. Such cases are to be avoided when providing neutral geographic definitions.Alexikoua (talk) 13:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Nope, he represented the Ottoman view of the time. He was an Ottoman intellectual. It was he and not others who wrote an Ottoman Encyclopedia reflecting the Ottoman world view. It may be a shock or surprise but Ottomans also defined their territories in regional and geographic ways outside of official administrative units. Note i placed other scholarship in my above comments. I mean you have brought little apart from your personal view on Sami. In the end its looking more like @Seraphim System: may have it when it comes to a map that has no sources and one does not know what its based on apart from what appears to be the guesswork of a editor who can no longer be reached due to them retiring their account. If you want a neutral outcome for now then there should be no map in the infobox until something sufficient based on sources and has consensus is achieved. Otherwise anyone can place guesswork maps.Resnjari (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually he ignored the official Ottoman view and that's why his view contradicts the view of the Ottoman administration. Such outdated sources should be avoided as nonRS (Sami also fails ACADEMIC).Alexikoua (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Is there actually an issue with a modern RS source that happens to cite Frash as indicative of the late Ottoman view of Anatolia? The surprising thing here is that you're arguing against a source that supports what I would've expected to be your position. That said Resnjari has also presented other sources that do seem to rebut SS's assertion that the map cannot be sourced. What you have now is a debate between whehter we should use the modern view or the historical one -- they are both more useful in specific domains (ecology for modern, history for historical obviously, and so on), so it's probably better to just use both, add the sources with quotes, and call it a day, no?--Calthinus (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I would like to reiterate that this is primarily a geography article, and that geographic considerations should take precedence. We are primarily interested in the definition of the geographic eastern boundary of the Anatolian plateau. Places in Greater Syria (Alexandretta, Antep, Kilis, Maras) are generally considered part of the Mesopotamian plain and not the Anatolian plateau. It is for this reason they were historically part of the Aleppo vilayet. Linguistic considerations are unreliable, as Anatolia has changed languages several times through history (Hittite --> Greek --> Turkish). Linguistic limits change, geographic limits do not. 22:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Exactly, the area your talking about is in Anatolia. The supposed boundary is a pre-1923 border for the state of Turkey. Why would we represent (part of) the Sevres boundary on an infobox map? These are Armenian claims to Turkish land [15] (quote from the source: "That included about a third of Anatolia") — there are certainly articles where this should be discussed, but misrepresenting it as some kind of "geographic" or geological boundary (when all scientific sources confirm they are the same place geologically) is not ok.Seraphim System (talk) 07:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
No, "all scientific sources" do not consider the Mesopotamian plain and the Armenian Highland as part of Anatolia (in fact none do). Do not mischaracterize sources and stop refusing to get the point. Also interesting you bring up the Sevres treaty. Is that what this discussion was about all along? Khirurg (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean, this discussion is about replacing the current map. There has been a lot of extended discussion, but I have been too busy making a new map, were you and GGT discussing Sevres? I will try to review everyone's comments in more detail, but so far I have been checking in to review the WP:RS that other editors have posted in the discussion to help with the new map, which is what I am focused on. I can't use random comments on talk as sources.Seraphim System (talk) 04:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
And all scientific sources I've seen' —if you think I am misrepresenting something, here is a picture of the Anatolian plate from Geodynamics: [16]. I'm not sure what is to the North, but the Arabian plate is to the South. This is Anatolia — it is roughly the territory of Eastern Turkey, but in its strictest definition, it is bounded by two fault lines. Stop.Seraphim System (talk) 04:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Maybe you should read sources before you post them here? Because the source you just posted shows that the Anatolian plate corresponds almost exactly to the traditional definition of Anatolia, and not "the territory of Eastern Turkey". Oops! Khirurg (talk) 05:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
It is not "almost exactly" anything — maybe you think inaccurate and careless work is acceptable for Wikipedia articles, but many other editors have stated in this RfC that they do not think this map is acceptable the way it is. Additionally, Achaemenid Anatolia includes some of the southern areas also. There are thousands of sources that attest to this — an analogous situation would be arguing that "Israel" should be not called "Israel" because it's name was changed by the Zionist state of Israel (following a nearly universally accepted international agreement) and the "traditional defintion" is the Kingdom of Jerusalem — I am really trying to be CIVIL here, but you would most likely be topic banned. Please do not make me list the thousands of sources for this one by one, and please do not continue to cast WP:ASPERSIONS at other editors as you have done several times during this RfC. Seraphim System (talk) 06:06, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Why are you getting angry? What's with the threats? Is it because the source you posted shows a map that's exactly the same as the one in the article, totally invalidating your claim? And you do know about WP:BOOMERANG, right? Khirurg (talk) 06:53, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not getting angry. Your POV stated above is very clear:

The caption of the current map clearly says that this is the "traditional" definition of Anatolia, which is exactly right. Now, the "modern" definition of Anatolia, or as it should be more appropriately be called, the "genocidal" definition, is nothing more than an attempt by the Turkish government to erase the term "Armenian Highland". It is not based on geography, archeology or history (except for the genocide). It is entirely unhistorical and fueled by nothing more than nationalist paranoia. As noted in the article (ref 13), it is for this exact reason that the academic community is growing increasingly uncomfortable with the "modern" definition, and moving back to the traditional definition, which is grounded in history and geography, as opposed to genocide denial and modern nationalism.

This is FRINGE. Whether uncomfortable or not, the "modern definition of Anatolia" as you keep calling itm is based on the Treaty of Lausanne—which is accepted by pretty much the entire planet. We can have this discussion only when that changes as a fact of international law. It is not a "genocidal definition". This is extreme POV, and is not what the articles should be based on. There are historical definitions, but which of the multiple historical definitions should be represented? That is a question that is going to be answered by WP:RS, not rhetoric that shames other editors by accusing them of genocide denial or "nationalist paranoia", or other derogatory statements. I will consider every reliable source that has been presented in this discussion.Seraphim System (talk) 07:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

(unindent) WP:FRINGE? Not at all. It's in fact well-sourced. It would help if you started by consulting the sources already in the article, such as this one [17] and this one [18]. On the other hand, I don't see a single source about the "modern definition of Anatolia is based on the Treaty of Lausanne". And it would help even more if you didn't mischaracterize what I said. As far as "extreme POV", the only instance of that that I see is in your attempts to do away the historical, millennia-old, definition of Anatolia from this article, which you have been at for months, even though there is no clearly no consensus for this. Khirurg (talk) 08:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Neither of the sources you posted is accessible. If it's a "historical millenia-old" definition, why is Hovannisian the only source for it? We already have an article about this and it is also different from the "millenia-old" definition you are pushing for Anatolia Eyalet. We're not just going to erase 500 years of Ottoman history because you don't like it. Seraphim System (talk) 09:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Really? Really? The "accessibility" canard? That's what you're going to try now? Here, let me help you then: This calamity was the physical elimination of the Armenian people and most of the evidence of their ever having lived on the great Armenian Plateau, to which the perpetrator side soon gave the new name of Eastern Anatolia. (page 3). Clear enough? I suggest you find a better use of your time, you're not going to win this. Khirurg (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Map
Just an example of the use of Kartographer. The shaded region shows Central Anatolia, as defined by a user at OpenStreetMap. But we can do the same thing for Anatolia, and then link it through wikidata item d:Q51614 and display it at the article.

(Summoned by bot) I had a suggestion which I was going to present, which involves using the brand new Mediawiki Kartographer mapping extension which was just enabled on en-wiki, to generate any map we like. I was mocking up some examples, which I was going to float in my suggestion comment, so you could see it in action, but ran into a snag. This may be some kind of Kartographer bug, or maybe I don't quite understand how to use it fully yet. In any case, if you want to see the mock-ups I was working on, they are at Talk:Anatolia/Maps. The last map is supposed to show a map of Anatolia just like the top one, except with a portion of it shaded, picking up data from OSM but it probably won't look at all like that when you view it. I opened a discussion at the Kartographer help page to see if they can help. If the problem is resolved, I'll come back and post again. Mathglot (talk) 09:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Update: there was indeed a bug (phab:T193455) but thanks to Evad37 I have a workaround. This is just an idea of the kind of thing we could create, if we want to. Mathglot (talk) 09:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Mathglot this is a great idea, thanks a ton, it can help end this catfight. If you make a map consistent with the sources posted above (with regards to Iskenderun etc etc), you will probably get majority approval. Thanks, --Calthinus (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Mathglot Just a few of points: 1) It would be ideal if the map showed topographic relief, such as the the current map, 2) It should be properly cropped, 3) the boundary of Anatolia should be highlighted as in the current map, and 4) it should be based on modern sources such as [19] and [20], not 19th century Ottoman sources, as some are suggesting. Thanks. Khirurg (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I also provided a few very recent sources [21], [22] about scholarly discussions on Anatolia separate to "Ottoman sources" that also coincide with the traditional view of Anatolia. Have a read of those everyone. Best.Resnjari (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
If the boundary is drawn this article needs to split from Asia Minor. The boundaries of present-day Anatolia have been accepted by mainstream sources for nearly a century, and the literature about Anatolia covers many diverse archaeological sites that would be left out of this proposed boundary. Which article would we discuss that literature in? Why would we discuss it in an article that claims it's not in Anatolia? What a disservice that would be to our readers who come to this article for reliable, neutral information. We would be telling them Nemrut Dag is not in Anatolia. What will they think when, in the real world, every mainstream source (without exception) says that it is in Anatolia? I hope we are not seriously considering changing what hundreds of scholars have written when they say a site is located in Anatolia. The main article for Anatolia can not misrepresent the borders of Anatolia in the sense used by the vast majority of scholars, in diverse fields, today. Seraphim System (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: I suggest, as a matter of good faith, that we should transclude all of the sources and what they say from your user page to this TP so that the new users will be able to come across it easier. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm using those sources for the map that I am making, I've already put at least a full day's work into it, so I am planning to propose it and discuss it but it's not ready yet. I'm going to change the format of that page too so it is easier to read, probably as a table. I think it will only confuse things more right now.Seraphim System (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
@Calthinus: I have it on my list of things to do to get signed up at OSM, and when I do, adding an Anatolia map could be just as good a first project as anything else, but I'm not quite there yet, so I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for such a map from me, certainly not in a timely enough manner to affect this Rfc. My main interest was exposing Kartographer as a possible solution, and if that works out here, then great! Reading through the comments, it rather seems like achieving some consensus on what the map should display may end up being more difficult than mastering the technical angle of executing it. One thing occurred to me, on that score: if most of the problem resides in trying to find one map that satisfies everybody, then why not consider using a small multiple? Pick four maps from different, important eras, lay them out in a 2 x 2 grid, fuse into one image, and use that. Another way to do this, is with a gif or other moving image type. I've seen these used in some articles on migrations or something, I forget where exactly, but you could layer three or four or more maps in a shifting time-series that shows the evolving nature of "Anatolia" as time progresses. Mathglot (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Mathglot thank you so much for your work. The time series is an interesting idea but given the disputed nature of things here it might make things just more complicated here-- the two that are under discussion are the Ottoman definition and the modern Turkish definition. Now I'll be frank-- you'll be most successful here if you simply shut out all the warring back and forth, and come to your own independent conclusions based on hte sources presented. If you agree early with one side, then the other side instantly becomes suspicious and trying to please everyone gets you trapped in a spiderweb (where I currently am for a... different map :) ). On the other hand, if you read all this (try not to grin too hard at the tomfoolery), don't talk to us, come to your own conclusions and present those independently first, at least the various, uhh, post-Ottoman factions will not think you are influenced by or partial to one of the others (another mistake I made-- avoid it). If you want I think ED's suggestion of digging the sources out of this could be good -- I can post them all on your talk page (with no other text) tomorrow evening if you think that would be helpful. Let me know. Best of luck and thanks again for your effort. --Calthinus (talk) 04:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Calthinus Thanks, but shutting out the EW is exactly what I'm doing already. I'm aware that a dispute exists, but not aware of how many sides there might be, or what anyone's position is, or why, nor do I really have much interest in that aspect of it. If you glean from that that I haven't read most of the discussion here carefully or completely, that's completely accurate. I was summoned here by a bot, realized I might be able to contribute something by offering a link to the Kartographer technology, and if that helps out here, then I'm glad. But I don't wish to contribute an opinion on which map (or maps) to use; I merely hoped that offering another possible way to generate one in addition to the "regular" methods might help in some small way to finding a consensus. If it doesn't; then I wasted my breath, but it was worth a try. I do wish you all the best in resolving this! Mathglot (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@Khirurg: I'm not sure if Kartographer can show topo, I think not, but I'm only just coming on board with it. Cropping shouldn't be an issue, as you can specify height and width. Zoom levels are discrete, so you can have zoom=4 or zoom=5 but not zoom=4.5.
As a final thought, you might consider making a request to the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop for some help or suggestions. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 04:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Re It's quite fine is not going to be enough here — I'm not sure why editors have the impression an RfC is a place to post random opinions. This article is mainly an archaeology article — this is not a politics article. Do you really think it is perfectly fine for an article to link here saying "such and such excavation in Anatolia" only for this article to have a poorly explained map that explains that the WP:RS are wrong and that's not in Anatolia? Why is that "quite fine" on this article, I don't think it would be "quite fine" on any other article. Seraphim System (talk) 06:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Anyway, I am going to follow Mathglot's advice and try to animate it. It's not going to be finished for a while. Until then I think the current map should be removed, it's not of an appropriate quality for the infobox of a highly visible article, which is enough reason to remove it. A few editors above mentioned replacing it with a collage or a neutral image until a better map could be found.Seraphim System (talk) 06:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
No, you should not remove it. A majority of participants at the RfC are in favor of the current map. You can't have an RfC, and then when it doesn't go your way, ignore it. Not going to fly. Also, no users except you wanted a collage, which is frankly a ridiculous idea. Khirurg (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
By the way, the whole purpose of an RfC is for users to express their opinions. It is not for you to badger them with stuff like I'm not sure why editors have the impression an RfC is a place to post random opinions. Opinions is what an RfC is for. Khirurg (talk) 06:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

To summarize: I'm taking this article off my watch list, I find the constant aggression from one user Khirurg are really making it difficult for me to edit, for example where he says Also, no users except you wanted a collage, which is frankly a ridiculous idea. — I don't think it was a ridiculous idea. I was actually thinking of taking a wikibreak to get away from this and I think I may do that now. No editor should have to deal with this — Khirurg still has not provided a quote for the Mitchell source, btw, which I am starting to think is because the source does not the support the claim in the article. Please count the number of personal attacks and WP:ASPERSIONS from Khirurg in this discussion alone. I don't think a second RfC is likely to be more productive if this is allowed to continue.Seraphim System (talk) 07:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

You call that a personal attack? Seraphim, WP:Don't be high-maintenance. This project is voluntary. No one is forcing you to edit it. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I was actually thinking of taking a wikibreak to get away Now, unlike the collage, there's an excellent idea. Khirurg (talk) 07:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I will make a list in my userspace of all the ASPERSIONS and personal attacks and harassment on my talk page as evidence, since you are now accusing me of being HIGH MAINTENANCE. No, I am taking a break to get away from it, not to "receive validation" for anything, but because it is making me feel physically ill and everytime I get a notification I am anxious/scared it is some other personal attack like "genocide denial" etc. Seraphim System (talk) 08:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
No one here is accusing you of being a denialist, but you have pushed for denialist talking points in several articles, either purposefully or accidentally.
Some examples:
  • Removing denialist attributions to so-called historians who are AG denialists ([[23])
  • Then, right after doing that, claiming that the President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars statement should be removed ([24])
  • Shifting the responsibility of the AG from the Turkish government to the Kurds ([25])
  • Arguing that Turkification never happened because Armenians happen to live in Istanbul today ([26])

That's just some of the things I can name off the top of my head. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey guys (Seraphim System-Khirurg-EtienneDolet), would you mind if I put a hat on this (my comment included)? It is not about the page and the rest of us don't want to have to read this. Also, Seraphim, I do recommend a break, not because of anything about your editing (thank you for creating Palatal harmony!), but because honestly it doesn't seem like you're enjoying Wikipedia now and a break can help give you some useful time to think. If you need help enforcing it, there is the WP:Wikibreak Enforcer. Cheers, and don't let wiki take the joy out of your life, because you know it can.--קל • thinus 16:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your concern, but no. If you don't want to read something, don't read it (although it seems you have already read it). Khirurg (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
TPs are about the mainspace. User spats belong more on user talk pages if anywhere. But I won't hat without consent.--קל • thinus 17:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm turning off ping notifications and emails, I don't want to be contacted until I decide to resume editing. Seraphim System (talk) 06:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
It is not, I'm very familiar with the sourcing for this topic — The peninsula you are talking about is Asia Minor, these were held equivalent in 19th century biblical geography sources, and not until the 19th century. The term in biblical times is Asia Minor, and prior to that there is numismatic evidence for a term "Anatolia" but the scholarship about what that meant is speculative, not definite. There may be enough content to split the Asia Minor article from the Anatolia article, because Anatolia as it is used in current scholarship is a modern term that is heavily used in archaeological sources that I want to add to expand this article as the primary topic. I think it is best to close the RfC for now until the sourcing in the article is improved, because it is confusing new editors, and frustrating me — especially in places where the citations have been misrepresented and otherwise fail verification. Unfortunately, I don't have time to do this now, and I'm not sure when I will have time to resume editing regularly because I will be traveling (not anything having to do with this RfC). Seraphim System (talk) 01:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Asia Minor = Anatolia. No citations have been misrepresented. Can you come up with specific examples? Title, page number, etc...? And no, we're not going to prematurely close the RfC just because it's not going your way. Let it run its course. Khirurg (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't know why you keep saying things like we're not going to prematurely close the RfC just because it's not going your way — I've gotten enough comments from editors to gauge if there is sufficient interest for me to put time into making a new map — which is a considerable effort. Several editors made suggestions including animating the map to show different time periods that I am going to try to implement, as well as improving the corresponding text. It now seems like you are trying to "win" this RfC to prevent continued discussion that threatens "your" version? I hope that is not the case. This RfC can't resolve anything about a map I haven't even created yet. I don't know if you are aware but your tone comes across as very aggressive re guessing at my motivations, etc. I won't have much time to work on it as I will be travelling for most of the next couple of months.Seraphim System (talk) 07:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

'Largest city and capital - Ankara'

Shouldn't it just say 'capital'? The area in the diagram includes Istanbul, which is far greater than Ankara. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1028:96D4:31A6:29C1:BD0A:64D4:9EF8 (talk) 05:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

New map

The map seems to have changed since I last visited this article ... Seraphim System (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Vazken Davidian

I have removed this [27]. We don't include non-expert opinions in articles and this is the opinion of an art history student. I did not mention in my edit summary but I have also removed it under WP:BLOCKEVASION as it was added by a suspected sock of LTA account User:Meowy [28] Seraphim System (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

That article is published by the Études arméniennes contemporaines, a peer-reviewed journal specializing in Armenian studies. If he were such a "non-expert", why would he get published by such a prestigious academic journal? Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
It's not a particularly prestigious academic journal, this is a very low cite student paper (2 cites in Google Scholar, and one of those is Davidian citing himself). We don't include WP:FRINGE opinions from non-notable students/persons in our articles.Seraphim System (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
How's it not prestigious again? A lot of their works are cited by other academic papers and journals. And here are some of the members of its board:
Raymond Kevorkian (the head), Taner Akçam, Krikor Beledian, Ara Sarafian, Yves Ternon, Uğur Ümit Üngör, and others are members of the advisory board. These are topnotch scholars and experts in the field of Armenian and/or Oriental studies.
Bottom line is his work has been published by a leading academic journal in Armenian studies. This should be noted. See WP:SOURCETYPES: Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. And maybe it's not cited that much because it's been only 3 years or so since it has been published. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
We absolutely can not give WP:FRINGE opinions equal weight with the majority view of WP:RS. This is an WP:NPOV violation. If you can find additional secondary sourcing to show that Davidian's remark about a "growing body of literature" is not a WP:FRINGE or "passing" remark, it can be included. Because Davidian is not a recognized expert, the citation count matters, Wikipedia is not a way to increase it. This comes very close to inappropriately promoting a non-notable student, which we can't do. There are a lot of low-cite student published journal articles, but we have to use some discretion when it comes to opinion statements.Seraphim System (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  • And we should also note that while the essay is quite interesting and high quality, I don't think Meowy's sockpuppet has done a good job of representing it here. This quote has apparently by cherry-picked and added to the article for POV reasons and not in the interests of the article. Why not add some of the actual content from the article instead? Here is some relevant content from the article that could be summarized:

The material presented here, provides a counterpoint to these artificial histories, whether Turkish, Armenian, or other, through firstly, extensive and privileged use of a wealth of Ottoman Armenian and other Armenian language sources, a hitherto untapped resource by art historiography; secondly, through the appropriation of an emic approach from an anthropological toolkit32, in an attempt to get closer to that which is being studied. Hence the usage of historical terms that the actors themselves would have used when, for example, discussing geographical regions, such as “Ottoman Armenia” and “Ottoman Kurdistan”33 in preference to seemingly “neutral” later ahistorical impositions such as “Eastern Anatolia”34, and descriptions, underscored by the faithful use and rendering of materials in the original language (in this case Western Armenian) that allow subjects to speak with their own voices.

Seraphim System (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

"Traditional definition"

Khirurg what source are you using for the "Traditional definition". This seems to be contradicted by multiple sources cited in the article that dispute there is any such "traditional definition". If you are not able to produce a clear source for this, I think it is a behavioral and not a content dispute to continue to restore it. Seraphim System (talk) 04:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The sources are in the body text. But when you removed the traditional definition, you removed the sources as well. Also, please don't cast aspersions. I won't warn you again. Khirurg (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Asking you to state clearly which sources is not casting aspersions. Which source verifies this content? When content is challenged on the talk page "the sources are in the body text" is not engaging with the talk page discussion.Seraphim System (talk) 04:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
We've been over this a hundred times [29]. The sources are all in the article. You would know, since you removed them. I even added one. Khirurg (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I saw the source thank you, I will use this source to rewrite the content. It is a bit more detailed then saying "traditional definition", which is a vague and loaded term and is not used by any of the sources I have seen.Seraphim System (talk) 05:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
There are other sources in the article as well. I would strongly caution you against misquoting sources. The text should stay as is. Khirurg (talk) 05:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
What sources have I misquoted? These don't seem to be neutral edits and I am going to move the geography content back into the geography section tomorrow. Can you please say on this talk page what the "other sources" are? Seraphim System (talk) 05:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Mitchell, for one (which you removed using the summary "notes/references" [30]). Rather than making unilateral edits to the article, it would be best if you proposed something here on the talkpage and we could work something out. Khirurg (talk) 05:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
One problem is that you are reverting without reviewing the content you are reverting. You can see in that diff that I did not remove the Mitchell source. I am not going to go around in circles. This is a simple request: Can you explain why you are objecting to changing "traditionally" to "by some definitions"? Can you also provide a page number/quote from Mitchell that says the majority of sources accept this as a "traditional definition"? I have never seen anything like that in Mitchell. I am willing to discuss it, but I need to see a reliable source supporting it first. I am currently working on adding a lot of content to the article that is missing, (along with filling in the red links), so I don't think my proposing edits to the talk page to see if they meet with your approval is going to be feasible. Are you willing to engage with the talk page discussion? I'm not sure how productive continued discussion will be if you are not willing to even provide a page number or quotation for disputed/challenged content.Seraphim System (talk) 06:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I am perfectly willing to discuss anything on the tp. I don't know why you are insinuating I'm not. I have already warned you about casting aspersions. What I am objecting to is your removal of the traditional definition of Anatolia form the lede, and from the body text, which you did so using a deceitful edit summary. And yes, you should propose any potentially controversial edits to the talkpage. That's how it works. You can't just ram controversial edits in the article. There is no deadline. Khirurg (talk) 06:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I just checked Mitchell again and it does not say anything about a "traditional definition". Can you please provide quotations that you believe support this content? I can't really understand why an editor would refuse a request like this. The easiest way to resolve a dispute like this is to provide a quotation that everyone can review for themselves. If the content is supported by sources and NPOV, I have no objection to leaving it in the article.Seraphim System (talk) 06:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Can you also please explain why changing "traditional definition" to "by some definitions" is controversial? The use of the word traditional creates WP:WEIGHT problems and it is vague (which tradition?). If we could attribute it to the source, as a subjective term that would be fine, but we need to be able to verify it. I am looking at Volume 1 of Mitchell The Celts in Anatolia and the Impact of Roman Rule which is cited in the article. Can you check the source and make sure this is the correct citation? Seraphim System (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Mitchell defines Anatolia. Maybe he doesn't use the exact wording "traditionally", but he does define historical Anatolia. If "traditionally" bothers you so much, perhaps we can use "historically". By the way, why were you asking me for a page number if you are able to check Mitchell? Also, here's another source [31] Drawing a line...from Malatya to Trabzon offers a fairly accurate eastern boundary to the plateau. Khirurg (talk) 06:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
It's not just that you changed "traditional" to "by some definition". You actually removed the traditional definition from the lede entirely. It would be best if you stopped pretending otherwise. It won't look god if this goes to arbitration. Khirurg (talk) 06:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Historically would be fine, and wikilinking to Ptolemy—that was along the lines of what I was thinking and adding more of the details from the Niewohner and Oxford Handbooks sources and the Oxford Handbooks discussion about excavations east of the Halys. I think it's better to work on the article before the lede because there is still a lot of work that needs to be done on the article. I would not that this It would be best if you stopped pretending otherwise. is commenting on the contributor, not the content. If you are not able to keep comments focused on the content, for whatever reason, I am not going to continue replying. Seraphim System (talk) 07:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Khirurg I also did not use a deceitful edit summary and I request that you strike that comment above. I am currently working on a major edit, so I have this copied into my text editor. Things like this happen all the time. It is not ok to accuse editors of bad faith editing without a very sound reason. It is such a toxic and destructive behavior that, in my opinion, the only place for these types of accusations, outside a routine and polite warning, is an ANI complaint. The article talk page is not the right place. These types of accusations do not help build a consensus, which is what we are trying to do here. I am beginning to wonder if it would be better to not use edit summaries at all, since it is not possible to fully describe all changes in an edit summary as you are demanding and I certainly don't want to get in trouble for it.Seraphim System (talk) 07:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Unjustified tagging of sourced content

A citation needed tag was added to sourced content twice with an edit summary of various fixes, moved some things around, did not remove anything. However, verification failed and quote needed tags that I added were removed and a citation needed tag was added to sourced content. This seems WP:POINTY (both in the removal of justified tags and the addition of unjustified ones).The editor was informed on their talk page that the content was sourced, but removed the posts from their talk page citing harassment and how about you don't revert using misleading summaries before lecturing others[32][33] and continued to restore the citation needed tag to sourced content even after being informed that the content was sourced. Now an IP editor has removed the sourced content. I am going to restore it with a quote from Suny and have requested an explantion from Khirurg on his talk page about whether he was editing while logged out. Usually this type of discussion is more appropriate for an editors talk page, but since he feels "harassed" by editors posting on his talk page and routinely refuses to reply or acknowledge comments posted there, perhaps he would be more comfortable replying here. Seraphim System (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: Khirurg denies editing while logged out per this edit summart no, and go away now. [34] I hope if he is telling editors to "go away" he does not intend to continue reverting. I don't mind discussing to reach a consensus, but I do mind discussing when an editor is routinely hostile and uncivil and discusses other editors rather then his own contributions (for example how about you don't revert using misleading summaries before lecturing others when restoring an unjustified citation needed tag to sourced content). I have started collecting diffs for this, but I am reluctant to go to ANI. I've heard IBANs are not helpful, but I think that is the direction this is heading in. The only reason I'm not asking for it is because the resolution would unfairly burden me. Not sure what else to do, but how hard is it to give editors you aren't getting along with some space? It's supposed to be a collaborative project, not WP:BATTLEGROUND.Seraphim System (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I did not add a cn tag, I added a vn tag to a different sentence. I never added a tag to the sentence the IP removed. I don't know if you are trying to mislead, or if competence issues involved, but it would be best if this stopped. I am keeping a record of such incidents and will bring them to the appropriate venue if this doesn't stop. Khirurg (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
@Khirurg: You added it here [35] and also restored it here [36] and again here [37]. Seraphim System (talk) 16:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
What's the source for the sentence, and what's the page number? Thanks, Khirurg (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I told you what the source was here [38] in a comment you reverted citing harassment. It is trivial to check the easily accessible source yourself and search it for the content. Google Books makes this very easy. In any case, I was going to add a quote to it before removing the tag. Again, this seems like WP:POINT because I added tags to citations that I suspect are miscites (most likely due to carelessness). I requested quotes/page numbers because you disputed that they failed verification, but this was only after I attempted to verify the source myself and was not able to. It doesn't seem like any such effort was made before these tags were added, as neither one of these sources is particularly difficult to access.Seraphim System (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
There is no page number given. Please provide a page number. Thank you. Khirurg (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Did you even try to find the page number? The source is easily accessible, this information is not hard to find. Can you explain why you removed the quote needed tag I added to Mitchell in the same edit even though your edit summary said did not remove anything? If you wanted a page number or a quote, all you needed to do is ping me on this talk page and ask for one. I am generally good natured enough that I would take the time to pull it up for you, even though it is something you can easily find yourself, in the spirit of fostering a collaborative environment and project, but I'm starting to feel stupid assuming good faith here.Seraphim System (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Your refusal to provide the page number is very telling. The onus is on you to provide a page number. Thanks in advance. Khirurg (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  1. @Khirurg: Your refusal to provide the page number is very telling.. I am not refusing to provide a page number and I don't see anything in my comment that If you wanted a page number or a quote, all you needed to do is ping me on this talk page and ask for one. that could reasonably be construed that way— based on this, I no longer believe your interaction with me is in good faith.
  2. Let us also note your response when asked for a page number: [39], [40]. *Note: first diff was added after Khirurg's response.
  3. One of the minimum requirements for a consensus discussion is showing fellow editors mutual civility and respect. That is the basis for any consensus discussion. A consensus discussion is not some editors attempting to address concerns in good faith and another hurling abuse and false accusations.This is basic and fundamental.
  4. I've reviewed your contributions to this talk page and I think there is enough for an ANI complaint, however, my hope is that it will not be necessary. I'm inclined to believe that you have something to offer the project somewhere, and I would like you to continue doing that. I am asking you to leave me alone Khirurg, after the types of things you have said to me, on a personal level, I do not want to interact with you. Please respect that. I think if we voluntarily agree to not engage each other we can avoid a formal IBAN. Most of the time mature editors can resolve something like this without needing administrative restrictions imposed on them, and I hope this can be one of those times.Seraphim System (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're talking about. I searched the source but did not find evidence for the tagged sentence. So once again I am going to ask you for the page number. Khirurg (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
It on page 31, it says No matter what the Ottomans named the region or how they divided it up, mapmakers outside the empire designated the extensive mountainous plateau in eastern Anatolia as Armenia. Khirurg, I do not find you credible. I am sure you have something to offer somewhere, but I don't think forcing me to interact with you is going to be productive for the project. I do not want to interact with you. If I am forced to continue this farce I think I am going to have to leave the project. I really do not feel I should have to tolerate being abused as part of a process that is supposed to be about collaboartive consensus building and I believe it is the responsibility of administrators here to ensure that is not happening. If you do not leave me alone this is going to end up at ANI.Seraphim System (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you providing the page number, I don't know why you didn't do so earlier. I have no problem with the content being reinstated, however, you will note the sentence in the source has a slightly different meaning than the truncated version you had inserted. I would propose something along the lines of "Although the Ottomans divided and renamed the region, mapmakers outside the Empire continued to refer to the eastern regions as Armenia". Talkpage participation is voluntary. If you don't want to participate, don't. But you can't demand I not participate at an article talkpage, especially after you accused me of "editing unlogged" (attempted doxxing?), WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:POINT and so forth. As for ANI, you are aware of WP:BOOMERANG right? I will be sure bring up your edit warring, removal of sourced information with misleading edit summaries, and incivility such as Khirurg, I do not find you credible (and many others). Khirurg (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't care if you participate but I want you to leave me alone. If my edits are as problematic as you say they are, it is past time you report them to ANI or AE. This is creating an unpleasant editing environment. Your comments on this talk page alone have had an edge of viciousness and nastiness that I have rarely encountered on Wikipedia, even on very difficult and challenging articles.[41][42][43]. There is no POV that is so right and true that it justifies the way I have seen you speak to other editors, including myself. I have learned a lot from our interaction about how not to behave during consensus discussions and I'm grateful for that valuable experience as I think it has made me a better editor. Seraphim System (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC about opinion quote from art student

No consensus. Very skimpy participation in the RfC. Honestly, it does seem hard to believe that the best that we can do about for a source about a historically significant, heavily populated, and otherwise rather important feature of geography be writing about art history; but that should be for the participants to judge, here there just weren't very many participants. --GRuban (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Should this opinion quote from art history student be included in the article:

"Vazken Davidian terms the expanded use of "Anatolia" to apply to territory formerly referred to as Armenia as "an historical imposition", and notes that a growing body of literature is uncomfortable with referring to the Ottoman East as "Eastern Anatolia".

Note that the full article is about art history. This is the link to the full article: [44] RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 23:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC). Seraphim System (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Poll

  • Remove This is the opinion of a non-notable student. We don't usually add these types of opinions to the article unless they are very significant. In this case it's only a couple of passing remarks that have been taken out of context. Second, the paragraph is discussing the years between 1915-1941, but these quotes are exclusively about the terms historians use for the 19th century. It would be very irresponsible and misleading to keep this in the article. Seraphim System (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Attribute properly. For starters - this RfC is not neutrally framed. The source is a journal article (I am, however, unsure of the journal quality) - so it is the published work of an "art history [doctoral] student". Furthermore, the journal article has citations - in this case - it cites this work - which seems like a better source. Icewhiz (talk) 16:58, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Extended Discussion

I think we should cover Hovannisian's views especially from Remembrance and Denial: The Case of the Armenian Genocide but we have to acknowledge that the region is eastern Anatolia. If editors can accept the difference between should be and is, I think this section can be improved and present the information more effectively then it currently does.

Back to the issue at hand in this RfC, content of this nature is more effective when the sources are authoritative. It is also essential that the sources check out. A lot of us work very hard to produce a high quality encyclopedia and that means referencing, referencing, referencing (and putting the reliability of the encyclopedia ahead of sentiment when our views are the minority view the WP:RS). I don't think there is an editor on this project who has not had to deal with a situation like this at some point, but I hope we can reach a consensus about how to address this.

I'm not sure why this needed to escalate to an RfC. What the source actually says is Hence the usage of historical terms that the actors themselves would have used when, for example, discussing geographical regions, such as “Ottoman Armenia” and “Ottoman Kurdistan”33 in preference to seemingly “neutral” later ahistorical impositions such as “Eastern Anatolia” It's clear and practically indisputable from reviewing this source that this quote has been taken out of context. I will highlight the part of the text that gives this away: that the actors themsleves would have used. Davidian says "ahistorical imposition"; our article says "an historical imposition". This source is talking about the accuracy of historical discussions about the Ottoman period, the paragraph we misquoted it in is talking about the changing of toponyms after 1941. Hovannisian is a much more authoriative source for this subject and discusses it in far greater detail, so this discussion should be attributed and sourced to Hovannisian. Davidian is not a strong enough source for this content.Seraphim System (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

First off, please present the context in a neutral matter. Like, perhaps removing the "Should this opinion quote from an art history student be included in the article" or "Note that the full article is about art history" remarks because it sure sounds like you're (mis)guiding !voters to join your POV. Secondly, your Extended Discussion remarks are also gravely misleading. I don't know if we're reading the same article but you conveniently left out the part of the source that specifically says: A new and growing body of literature is uncomfortable with referring to the Ottoman East as “Eastern Anatolia”. And that wording is aligned with what the article already says. And if you think Hovannisian should be added to the article, then you're welcome to do so (he's already there by the way). But to keep on insisting that a peer-reviewed article from a pretty legit academic journal is unreliable is not the way to go about doing this. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
The fact that this is an opinion from a non-notable art history student and not an expert on Turkish or Ottoman history is the basic minimum that anyone participating in this RfC needs to know. I will address this, but not waste space on all the inaccuracies in your above statement: The passing remark you quoted is a footnote referring to a forthcoming book called The Ottoman East in the Nineteenth Century. I'm sorry I didn't spell it out - this is the topic sentence for the paragraph: Following the Armenian Genocide and establishment of the Republic of Turkey, the Armenian Highlands (or Western Armenia) were renamed "Eastern Anatolia" (literally The Eastern East) by the Turkish government. The fact that it was added by a suspected sock puppet, who was evading a block, is plain as day, yet you continue to defend it. I don't have anything more to say to you.Seraphim System (talk) 19:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Complaint about neutrality of RfC statement

This RFC is not presenting the matter in a neutral way. Read the guidelines under WP:RFC. And saying that it's a "basic minimum that anyone participating in this RfC needs to know" just proves my point because it sounds like you really do want to misguide users into accepting your side of the of the argument. You've left out key parts, for example, as to the source itself which is published by a peer-reviewed academic journal. Hence why this RFC should be revised and preferably stick to the point (i.e. nothing more and less than "does this belong in this article?") as WP:RFC guidelines suggest.
And just because the material was added by a sockpuppet doesn't invalidate it. If there are other users, such as myself, who find the content suitable for this article, then we should take it seriously. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Please don't keep repeating yourself, this is turning into a wall of text already. Seraphim System (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I've struck the Note that the full article is about art history. which I added rather carelessly, but I've left the full link to the source for any editors who want to review it themselves. I do, however, find it very suspicious that you are accusing me of seeking to misguide users by telling them the credentials of the author. Since I find that line of argument to be absolute bupkis, I've left that portion in. Seraphim System (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Asia Minor vs Anatolia

Anatolia (from Greek: Ἀνατολή, Anatolḗ; Turkish: Anadolu, "east" or "[sun]rise"), also known as Asia Minor. What? "Also known as"? "Anatolia" is a relatively recent, man-made, invented, and totally ahistorical place name, which is used in the Republic of Turkey to replace the historically known toponym of Asia Minor or Eastern Asia Minor for the Armenian Highlands. Therefore, to start the article with a mention that Anatolia is "also known as" Asia Minor is historically and toponymically incorrect. It'd be more professional of Wikipedia if the article will start with "Anatolia is a toponym used in modern Turkey to denominate the historical region of Asia Minor" or something of that sort.98.231.157.169 (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)Davidian

Odd claim, since the word Anatolia was not "relatively recent, man-made, invented, and totally ahistorical place name, which is used in the Republic of Turkey to replace the historically known toponym of Asia Minor or Eastern Asia Minor". The word Anatolia, in case you weren't aware of it is of Greek origin. Yes, Greeks generally use Mikrā Asiā (Asia Minor) instead of Anatolia. But the word Anatolia comes from the Greek word Anadholi or Turkish word Anadolu. The origin of the word is Greek. And in Greek it means "east, sunrise". It is even ridiculous that you can claim something like this without backing it up. MrUnoDosTres (talk) 06:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Map

@पाटलिपुत्र: Why are you following me and reverting all map changes I've done? What's the reason for reverting this one? — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 08:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Changing map

Hello, I feel like this map would be better to use in the article. Thoughts? — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 07:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Not a big fan, even more so for a geographical subject: at least a topographical map as we have in the page now gives some idea of what Anatalia looks like. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 07:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
I think it would be better, especially considering that the map is more in line with Wikipedia stylistically and the article already has a geography section, so the current map would work better there. Steve From The Financial Department (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. Since this seems to be the only reply in a while, does anyone else have a problem with the map being added? — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 20:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I will add the map as per WP:BOLD. If anyone has any problems with it, you can address it here. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 10:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

This map looks much better than the one used before, it would be better if this one is used on the article. Danloud (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking of replacing the current image with this orthographic projection, thoughts? Svenurban (talk) 12:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Cilicia is not part of Anatolia and it is more associated with Syria. Although Cilicia is part of the peninsula, high mountains between Cilicia and Anatolia were difficult to pass throughout the history. Anatolia (East) term was coined for areas at the peninsula except Cilicia. I suggest Cilicia to be removed from the Anatolia map.Seyhan668 (talk) 10:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Southeastern Anatolia Region and Eastern Anatolia Region missing from the current map?

Is there a reason to remove most of Southeastern Anatolia Region and Eastern Anatolia Region from the map? Khestwol (talk) 12:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

It isn't a part of Anatolian peninsula, just called Anatolia by Turkish government. Beshogur (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
And why wouldn't that be incorporated? Regions and definitions change all the time. Especially when there are no precisely indicated hard borders. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randam (talk • contribs) 20:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
See past discussions and the explanation in the article. The map reflects general geographical usage but there is an explanation of the political usage as well. DeCausa (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Because it's a distorting use by turkish government related with their intention to erase all armenian History from turkish territory.
Anatolia and Asia Minor never included historical Armenia nor northern Mesopotamia (divided in several historical regions Osroene, Corduene, etc).
Imagine that spaniards killed and ethnically cleansed all southern France 100 years ago and then started to call Occitania/Souther France just "northern Iberia"... 185.210.17.131 (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

armenian genocide

is it really should be mentioned in Anatolia#Geography?? that topic is not about history, it is about geography? i have no problems if it is mentioned in history section. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 13:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

https://eksisozluk.com/entry/148609796 i saw this from this link. im putting this, so people dont misunderstand me as "sockpuppet" ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 13:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
The name change and the wrong use of Asia Minor and Anatolia for lands that NEVER were part of those concepts is directly related with armenian genocide and the attempts by turkish state to erase any memory of historical armenia from current turkish territory. Of course should be mentioned. 185.210.17.131 (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Armenians are not natives of Anatolia, they were invaders from Caucasus, so they shouldn't be mentioned here. 78.174.30.254 (talk) 09:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
None of the above answers are relevant or correct. There are two definitions of "Anatolia": one sponsored by the Turkish government and another older one. The older one continues to be widely used eg by Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary but so too is the Turkish government's one. There needs to be an explanation of why there are two widely used meanings for the same term. DeCausa (talk) 11:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Whats in a Name

"Anatolia sometimes is synonymous with Asian Turkey, thereby including the western part of the Armenian Highlands and northern Mesopotamia and making its eastern and southern borders coterminous with Turkey's borders." what does Armenian Highlands have anything to do with it? Not sure when this term was invented but does not correspond to any known geography. The region includes Caucuses, but only a small part. In current usage by Turks, sometimes it is used to refer to Turkish hinterland, Eastern Turkey. Only Turks use it in this context. Let us keep this focused on the name and usage, not unrelated history or politics. I will come back and correct. Giving room for arguments here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hudavendigar (talk • contribs) 18:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Citations and Relevancy to the Article

Why are there an Entire section of Unsourced and uncited Section in this article that talk about major immigrations without a single source about it? I Also don't think Mentioning Armenian Genocide more than 5 times is Relevant to the Article at all, Sure the first one about Renaming of Armenian/Turkish Highlands to Eastern Anatolia Region and Kurdish Vilayets to South Eastern Anatolia Region can be Arguably Related but the other 4 times is just taking the piss out of it. there is Also no Mention of how Inner Anatolia was Populated after the Bronze age collapse and about the 6th century BCE Migrations of Armenians into Anatolia. Article should be Reviewed and Rewritten and actually put in an orderly conduct. MAngO K1nGo (talk) 16:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

"Erdschias-Gebiet" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Erdschias-Gebiet has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 9 § Erdschias-Gebiet until a consensus is reached. Mia Mahey (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

The map issue again

There seems to be only one modern source with limited definition of Anatolia (Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary) as far as I'm aware. Most sources define Anatolia as the entire Asian area of Turkey. As such, the current map is inappropriate. Bogazicili (talk) 11:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anatolia/Archive_6&oldid=1250087504"