Talk:Anatolia

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)

RfC: Should the map be changed?

I think just including all of Asian Turkey as Anatolia significantly decreases confusion, as there is no defined border of Anatolia. Besides, in Turkey, all of Asian Turkey is just referred to as simply Anatolia. Youprayteas (t • c) 17:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose See Hopkins, Daniel J.; Staff, Merriam-Webster; 편집부 (2001). Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary. Merriam-Webster. p. 46. ISBN 978-0-87779-546-9. Anatolia: The part of Turkey in Asia equivalent to the peninsula of Asia Minor up to indefinite line on E from Gulf of Iskenderun to Black Sea comprising about three fifths of Turkey's provinces, which is as represented in the map. DeCausa (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  Okay. But, the Anatolian Peninsula, the area referred more commonly in anicent times, and the culturally designated Anatolia (Turkish: Anadolu), which is just Asian Turkey as used by Turks are different. The article seems to compose both. What about the usage of two maps? Youprayteas (t • c) 18:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  It's a difference between the generally accepted international geographical definition per the map and the political definition of the Turkish government. I think two maps would be excessive/too clunky. But what would be good is if we could have the two boundaries on the same map. Do you have the skills? (I don't) If not perhaps we could get someone at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop to make one. DeCausa (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  While I have experience creating maps on paint apps, I don’t have any information on specifically Wikipedia type of maps, so yes, I think getting someone to do that would be the best option. Youprayteas (t • c) 18:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  So I've put in the request here: Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop/Archive/Feb 2024#Map of Anatolia. DeCausa (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  Youprayteas and DeCausa, the current map should be changed while Graphics Lab request is ongoing, because the current map is biased and only uses one definition. We can just put an image without borders for now like this [2]. Bogazicili (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Seems like a good option at the time. Let's wait for DeCausa's opinion. Youprayteas (t • c) 18:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think that works - it's too ambiguous - it gives the impression that Anatolia covers territory that no one calls Anatolia i.e a big chunk of the northern Levant. The current map isn't "biased", it's a long standing geographical definition per Merriam Webster. It's may be incomplete in that it doesn't show the other definition. But that's different. I would suggest the better short term approach is to add to the caption to refer to the other definition going to the eastern boundaries of Turkey - which are actually shown on the map. Otherwise, have patience and wait to see what comes out of the map lab. DeCausa (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipeda is a volunteer-based platform, your request may not be answered in Graphics Lab. And yes, it is definitely a biased map, favoring one definition while completely ignoring the other. Regarding your suggestion here [3], no it's not just the "Turkish Government definition" that Anatolia means Asian Turkey. And if you don't like that image, this image can be used [4]. I liked the NASA image because it's an actual image from space. And its caption could have read "Anatolia and surrounding areas". Bogazicili (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  As I said before (which you haven't answered) it's misleading because it doesn't show which part of it is Anatolia. The same is true of this other map you linked to. You didn't address my actual post (rather than the one I deleted): the current map could temporarily show both definitions since it shows the Turkish eastern boundary. It just requires amending the caption to explain it. DeCausa (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  I did respond: 'And its caption could have read "Anatolia and surrounding areas"'. The coloring in current map is biased. It'd be non biased if it was an all grey map. Bogazicili (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Two color map for both definitions would make more sense than the current one. Bogazicili (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  I agree too, as that is what we agreed on with @DeCausa. Youprayteas (t • c) 19:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• Agree to changing the map. Ideally a map that shows both definitions. But a general map such as [5] [6] until then, with appropriate captions. Bogazicili (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  As I explained above, neither are suitable as they don't delineate Anatolia. DeCausa (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  See above. Bogazicili (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Proposed solution is fine. Map that shows both definitions seems like a good way to present it, presuming the information can be put in an uncluttered manner. I don't think there has been WP:RFCBEFORE done to warrant a full RfC, though; doesn't seem to be too much contention here, unless there is previous political drama hidden from view? Fermiboson (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per DeCausa. I don't think that Turkey's opinion, merely one of about 200 sovereign states, should be put on equal footing with the definition used by mainstream geographers in the rest of the world. JM (talk) 02:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect. Besides Merriam-Webster geographic dictionary, no modern source seems to define it as depicted in the current map. Bogazicili (talk) 17:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose – per above. To add what I think is vital context, one of the trickiest needles to thread in Wikipedia is appropriately weighing what are essentially nationalist historiographies, in this case the post-Ottoman and post-Russian imperial states over the course of the 20th century. They are nationalist in that they are overtly teleological to various degrees, and also in that they have various levels of state support, often to a surprising degree those from Anglosphere countries where we got most of this over with in the centuries previous. Obviously, the nationalist historiographies may contradict one another, as well as other approaches, and it is difficult if one is not aware of their emergence. I think it's vital that volume and due weight of sources be assessed with these contingencies in mind. Remsense诉 03:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, we need due weight. Besides Merriam-Webster geographic dictionary, no modern source seems to define it as depicted in the current map. Also the current map is WP:Original Research. This map uses a 1907 map as the source. While Merriam-Webster geographic dictionary talks about an "indeterminate line", we don't exactly know what that line is, from a modern source. Bogazicili (talk) 18:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

While Merriam-Webster geographic dictionary talks about an "indeterminate line", we don't exactly know what that line is, from a modern source.

Is it wrong that this doesn't stress me out? It's a geographical region, not a political or geological one. Maps like these are supposed to be helpful at a glance.

Also the current map is OR

Is it? Maps are reasonable sources for information in the same ways prose is. It's not original research, it's just transferring the information communicated by the 1907 map to a new format. There isn't something deeply epistemological troubling there any more than there is when rewriting a paragraph of prose. Remsense诉 08:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:ORMEDIA explicitly excludes maps that simply re-present sourced information from being considered OR. JM (talk) 08:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is OR. The OR part is presenting a historic map as a modern map. The historic map would be ok further down in the article, talking about historic uses. The map in the lead should be the modern definition only. Also, it's not just a geographical region. Why did you think that? Bogazicili (talk) 11:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

What is the original research? Rather, what are the new claims being made that aren't attested in existing sources? Remsense诉 11:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The "indefinite line from the Gulf of Iskenderun to the Black Sea" can have so many variations. Straight dashes would have been less OR. Bogazicili (talk) 11:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Also it's shocking you managed to vote Oppose, even though the current map is biased. Bogazicili (talk) 11:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

1. The present map directly traces the boundaries of the 1907 map, as far as I can tell.
2. I would be fine with dashes or whatever preferred expression of inexactitude. It doesn't matter that much, as it's largely a geographical term. to me At least, I wouldn't really know another compelling geological or other definition for it, forgive my ignorance.
3. (⇒ This is OR now ⇒) To me, Anatolia means "the peninsula geometrically framed by these two seas", as lived in by Hittites, Lydians, Persians, Greeks, and Turks Seljuk, Ottoman, and republican. I don't know who I'm biased towards, if I'm being honest—sorry that I gave off that impression.

Remsense诉 12:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, thank you for admitting you voted even though you were ignorant about the subject. I suggest you review the sources in the article.

Saying that you want a map showing ONLY one definition with one source, while ignoring the other definition with at least 5 sources, including McColl, R. W. (2014). Encyclopedia of World Geography, is extremely biased. Bogazicili (talk) 12:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I've read the article and its sources. I'm saying I don't really understand the utility of a wholly administrative definition of Anatolia, its utility has been geographical and historical in my life to date. Is there a term for what I meant when I've previously said "Anatolia" when discussing Bronze Age history, or whatever? That's not a rhetorical question, and I'm not trying to annoy you, and I apologize if I'm testing your patience. Remsense诉 12:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

So you are saying that you are aware multiple sources is defining Anatolia as the entire Asian side of the Turkey. But it doesn't make sense to you personally. As such, you voted to keep the biased map. See: WP:V and WP:NPOV. You aren't annoying me, but I'm not interested in WP:Forum discussions. Bogazicili (talk) 12:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Forgive me if this sounds stupid now, but I guess I don't see why older sources are seen as wholly unreliable for this particular instance. I don't feel like I understand why we are justified in essentially writing "There used to be other definitions of Anatolia, but they are wrong now, because they now wholly align with the international borders of a modern nation-state. Because that's the tone I feel like we're arriving at. Could you concretely articulate why historical sources aren't reliable in this case, other than by virtue of being old? Are we not interested in historical concepts of geographical terms? Did they not know where the Black Sea and plateau were as well, so we have no reason to find their notion useful? If you disagree, then you disagree and I don't have any other points to make. If everyone else accepts Anatolia is a national term, then that's fine. It's been that for most of its history. Remsense诉 12:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so you are saying Asia should show this Asia (Roman province), because the latter is the historical definition? I guess definitions never change and we should use the oldest ones? Again, you are engaging in WP:FORUM, I'll probably not respond to you any further. Bogazicili (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

You're not being very civil. There are sources which show the current map. It's not a map out of ancient times. We are not obligated to take the Turkish perspective. And yes, Anatolia is only a geographical term. It refers to a geographical area. It's not an administrative division, and it's not an organization. JM (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The maps were not changed because of Turkish government name changes. The maps were drawn like this for a long time. No one outside of Turkey cared. Maybe they did not change until after NATO was established. Because of NATO the date of the sources does matter for the geographical question. (I explain below why the article is not only a geography article). Cornsimpel (talk) 13:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I am undecided. After a bad reaction from community members to my edits about this subject, I do not edit about it anymore, but I think I am allowed to write on the talk page. The cultural heterogeneity reflected by this line is ancient and recognized in many specialized fields like art history, biblical history, archaeology, etc. However, the concern about due weight and original research mean that I can not support or oppose at this time. The act of drawing a dividing line on a map represents a political boundary in our culture and understanding, so I think visitors to the article will interpret it that way. Our geography articles use modern maps. Anyone can see the map drawn this way in many older sources, and you can see that it is not drawn this way anymore in any mainstream sources. I consider Wikipedia to present the mainstream. But it is not only a geography article. We would not need a geography article for the Asian part of an established country which has its own country article. It is a cultural construct of relevance to specialized areas of study in the Western universities, and this may be why mainstream scholars working in the country follow the political view. I would support removing the infobox because it is the best way to convey information in some articles. I will be following the discussion, so I hope my comments are not offensive to anyone. I can be reached on my talk page if this is a concern about my comments. Cornsimpel (talk) 04:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  Even if we don't have an infobox, we should still have a map to show where in the world it is. My opinion is that geographic articles should always have maps. JM (talk) 04:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• Agree to changing the map I had originally said I'd prefer a map showing both definitions. Upon looking at the sources, it's clear that the primary definition is the entire Asian side of the Turkey, and this is used by multiple sources such as McColl, R. W. (2014). Encyclopedia of World Geography. The only modern source for the alternative definition seems to be Merriam Webster Geographic Dictionary. The current map also uses a 1907 map, there is no modern map, just the description from Merriam. As such, I'd now prefer a map without borders such as these [7] [8], or a map showing entire Asian Turkey. Showing both definitions in the map seems WP:UNDUE, unless more modern sources for the alternative definition is found. The current map seems more suited for the history section. Youprayteas and Fermiboson, what are your thoughts? I'm asking because you two because you had responded to my earlier comments. Bogazicili (talk) 11:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

References