Talk:Anatolia/Archive 4

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

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


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


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


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


 * For starters, how do you like Encyclopedia Britannica?


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


 * About general usage;




 * For contrast;




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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Source: Encyclopedia.com


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

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


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


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


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


 * - The heritage of Eastern Turkey: from earliest settlements to Islam (Antonio Sagona)
 * Uruk Mesopotamia und its Neighbors: Cross - Cultural Interactions in the Era of State Formation (Santa Fe and Oxford, 2001); for eastern Anatolia see chapters by Rothmann (an overview), Stein (Hacinebi), and Frangipane (Arslantepe).


 * - Life in Neolithic farming communities: social organization (Ian Kuijt)
 * Chapter 3 Hallan Çemi and Early Village Organization in Eastern Anatolia


 * - A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (D. T. Potts)
 * In part, this lacuna in our understanding of eastern Anatolia in the immediate aftermath of the Kura-Araxes may be a result ... However, the lack of assemblages in eastern Anatolia comparable to the Early Kurgans and Trialeti-Vanadzor ...


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


 * - The later prehistory of Anatolia: the late Chalcolithic and early Bronze Age, Part 1 (Jak Yakar)
 * In that respect, and as far as house plans are concerned, there are a number of close similarities between the domestic dwellings of north-central Anatolia (eg AlacahflyUk, BUyUk GUllflcek) and the highlands of eastern Anatolia


 * - Prehistoric Anatolia: the Neolithic transformation and the early Chalcolithic period (Jak Yakar)
 * ZONE B: EASTERN ANATOLIA In recent years field investigations in eastern Anatolia have intensified. In the Malatya province, ...


 * - Anatolia: Volume 1 (U. Bahadır Alkım)
 * Central and Eastern Anatolia The high plateaux of central and eastern Anatolia were the home of one of the most important groups of Early Bronze Age cultures.


 * - Collapse of the Bronze Age: The Story of Greece, Troy, Israel (Manuel Robbins)
 * Centuries earlier, Hurrians had come south from eastern Anatolia and left kings on the thrones of Amurru and Canaan.


 * - Anatolia and the ancient Near East (Kutlu Emre, Tahsin Özgüç)
 * AN EARLY TRADING CENTER IN EASTERN ANATOLIA


 * - The Aşvan Sites: Keban rescue excavations, eastern Anatolia (Antonio G. Sagona, Claudia Sagona)
 * The southern half of eastern Anatolia comprises a series of ranges east of the Euphrates which are essentially a continuation of the Anti- Taurus system.


 * - Anatolia: From the beginnings to the end of the 2nd millennium B.C (U. Bahadır Alkım, Henri Metzger, U. Bahadır Alkım)
 * on the one hand and Cilicia on the other, so that it will be possible to establish a comparative chronology. Central and Eastern Anatolia The high plateaux of central and eastern Anatolia were the home of one of the most important ...


 * - Eastern Anatolia and Urartians (Afif Erzen)


 * - Essays on ancient Anatolia in the second millennium B.C. (Mikasa no Miya Takahito)
 * About a century later, at the end of the twelfth century BC, small political entities started to take shape in parts of eastern Anatolia.


 * - Iron Age pottery in Northern Mesopotamia, Northern Syria and South-Eastern Anatolia (Arnulf Hausleiter, Andrzej Reiche)
 * Very little pottery was known from this area of eastern Anatolia prior to the rescue excavations of the 1970s and 80s, ...


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * On the section, "Location and definition", it says:
 * "This wider definition of Anatolia has gained some currency outside of Turkey and has, for instance, been adopted by Encyclopedia Britannica."
 * I'm sorry, but this is a huge understatement. "Eastern Anatolia" is by far the most common term the academic community uses to refer to Eastern Turkey as I proved time and time again.
 * And about the lead section, I don't see why there is need to even mention the Turkish government, when many chief encyclopedias say Anatolia is more or less synonymous with Asian Turkey. As for giving out the so called traditional definition there, I believe it defeats the whole purpose behind the "location and definition" section. There is really no point whatsoever in the new section if the article is going to be using dual definition in all sections. --Mttll (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you are being quite unrealistic. Absent the Turkish government designations, there can be no reason why the lands east of the Gulf of Iskenderun would be called Anatolia. Anatolia is a peninsula, as stated in the article. The lands east of the Gulf of Iskenderun, by definition, are not part of a peninsula. The sources you cite are not geographical gazetteers. They are general works (even if many are academic) and they quite obviously following the Turkish government designation, and in most cases simply use them: "Eastern Anatolian Region", "South Eastern Anatolian Region". Merriam-Webster's is the only specialist geographical gazetteer cited on this page. It also happens to be the world's most authoritative gazetteer. I'm not sure what you mean by using "dual definition" in all sections. The rest of the article covers the wider definition. However, one cannot avoid the fact that there are two definitions in existence: a traditional/historical/geographically pedantic one and a more generalised/non-specialist one originating from the Turkish government designation. DeCausa (talk) 07:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There are in fact sources dating from before the establishment of the republic of Turkey that use the term "Anatolia" in this broader sense. Again, see the older discussion at Talk:Prehistory_of_Anatolia, especially nrs. 14-18 (sources from 1907 to 1915). Iblardi (talk) 07:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair point. The later Turkish usage didn't come out of a vacuum, clearly. But I think it's reasonably clear that the impetus for its widespread use is official Turkish usage. DeCausa (talk) 08:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed "some" currrency to "widespread" currency, and added reference to other encyclopedias than britannica. Hope that helps. DeCausa (talk) 09:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Excellent work, my only remaining concern is a rather minor one, namely that I don't think there is a need to go over the whole eastern boundary definition in the lede, i.e. the last two sentences of the opening paragraph. If they are to stay, the last sentence should be changed to and the borders with Syria and Iraq as the southern boundary, because the "Southeastern Anatolia" region is in effect the northernmost part of Mesopotamia. Athenean (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be better. I just kept the existing text so as not to raise too many new points at the same time. DeCausa (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What would be better? Removing the whole "eastern boundary" thing from the lede or changing the sentences? Athenean (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry...changing the sentences. DeCausa (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


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

Home to vs Inhabited by

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

It would be incorrect to say it was "Home to" (the home of) many of those peoples or civilizations. "Inhabited by" is a better term. It's also more academic in tone. But since "home to" is false I cannot accept the article remaining in that state. It was not the home of all those civilizations and if used in the sense of "where someone lives" this is an extremely sloppy use of the term "home". From the relevant definition is "4a : a place of origin ; also : one's own country ". Anatolia was not "home to" Romans, Greeks, Persians, etc., etc. Obotlig ☣  interrogate 16:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Firstly, "I cannot accept the article remaining in that state". It's not for you to "accept" or "not accept". You should know that when there is resistance to a change to an article you want to make the proper reaction is to take it to the talk page to gain consensus for your change before attempting it again. You were reverted by two different editors. It's not for you to batter your change into the article. Secondly, your first change was poor idiom and not an improvement. Two editors told you that. Thirdly, the change you have now made is better and I won't revert - I can't speak for other editors of course and you should have suggested here before making the change. These are WP basics and you should by now (I see you have 800 edits) understand the WP process. DeCausa (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's "not for you" (?) to dictate what I (am to?) "accept" or "not accept". I'll defer to your status as a native English speaker as to whether "home to Greeks" or "inhabited by Greeks" makes more sense and is more encyclopedic in tone. Thanks for to work it with me in this topic. Obotlig ☣  interrogate 17:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of Bayesian phylogeographic analysis
This edit was made by the apparent author of the work cited in the added footnote - now footnote no. 20. I've left a message on his talk page about this thread. This isn't a problem in itself from the point of view of the COI policy: I think it just requires extra care. The document itself looks scholarly, and, WP:AGF I'm sure it is. But, not being an area I have any knowledge of, I can't tell whether it puts forward a notable opinion, how it sits with WP:UNDUE and, most importantly, whether it's a WP:RS. The reason for the latter comment is that I can't seem to work out the identity/status of the website it's published on, and whether it's self-publication. I would suggest that an editor with knowledge of the topic, or the author himself, explains in this thread, for the record, how it satisfies those requirements. Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 10:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Taking another look at the website, although I can't read Finnish, it does rather look like self-publication and therefore may not be a reliable source per WP:SELFPUBLISH. Hopefully, the author can clarify. DeCausa (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi! It is true that I mostly add links to my own relevant opinions - those I know best, so there are no misunderstandings concerning the contains. This whole phylogenetic method is so far so full of uncertainties and possible errors, that there must be some critical link balancing the Wikipedia article. If you can find some better critical review which has been already published in some scientific journal, mine can be replaced. I aim to extend my article and offer it to publication, but that won't happen in the very near future... Considering the huge publicity Bouckaert et al. got in the news media, I saw it urgent to publish the main points in my own page: it is easier to cut the weed before it grows too strong roots. --Jaakko Häkkinen (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. I can understand your scholarly desire "to cut the weed before it grows too strong roots", but unfortunately Wikipedia's policies mean it can't be done here. Wikipedia is about collecting and summarising material that is published in reliable sources (if you follow the link you'll see how this is defined). It is specifically not for publishing original research - that needs to go to established journals etc before it can go into Wikipedia. If the views in the published material aren't widely accepted by other scholars (even if published in reliable sources) they may still not go into Wikipedia if it means to do so would give undue emphasis (again follow the link for further explanation) given the overall balance of academic opinion. To put it crudely, Wikipedia's aim is not to be on the forefront of knowledge - just to repeat well established old knowledge!
 * Can I suggest that you revert your edit and consider putting it back in once (a) you have published the material (b) the scholarly reaction to it is known. I hope that wouldn't put you off contributing to Wikipedia - we're in real need of academic subject experts contributions. DeCausa (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, the method of Bouckaert et al. is not widely accepted, either (by googling you can find critique by historical linguists, but it is not yet published in scientific journals) so it should be taken away, too. I saw the Wikipedia policy very problematic already in the Finnish Wikipedia. At the present Wikipedia gives much room for poorly argued minority views only because they have been published, and presents them as equal alternatives for the best-argued mainstream theories. This is the very reason why many scientists don't see any point in Wikipedia - for them views are always rated by their quality, and this level is lacking in Wikipedia. Objectivity should not mean that the quality of the views is not allowed to assess. I firmly believe that the present policies prevent Wikipedia to ever reach a status of reliable source of information for the general audience.
 * If you want to edit the article, go ahead - my scientific ethic prevents me to edit it to a direction which makes the quality and objectivity of the article poorer. That would only result the misleading of the general audience. Jaakko Häkkinen (talk) 10:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I can completely understand why that would be your reaction. The problem is Wikipedia - "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" - isn't peer reviewed. There's no way of telling which editors have proper knowledge and training on any subject and have conducted credible research, and those that don't/haven't. It would mean that I (who knows nothing about Bayesian phylogeographic analysis, and not even sure what it means) could incorporate my views on the subject in an article as much as you could. It would be total chaos. We can't verify the credibility of individual Wikipedia editors and we can't verify the credibility of their views. All we can do is take what has been peer reviewed elsewhere, and re-publish that. This might lead to the weakness of giving "room for poorly argued minority views only because they have been published", but if it were not for that Wikipedia's content would become entirely the random personal views of those who happened to make the effort to edit. I think that the risk you identified is relatively low: if, as you say, Bouckaert et al. lack scholarly support,this will become apparent in a relatively short time by other publications. The problem Wikipedia has is having editors with sufficient subject knowledge of the literature to be aware of those other publications. That's were people like yourself could really make a significant improvement to Wikipedia articles. I'm afraid I will have to revert your edit if you are not willing to do so.
 * On the question of deleting the Bouckaert et al., that work was published in a leading scientific journal. It would need to be discredited in other published WP:reliable sources for it to be deleted for the reason you suggest. Are there any sources that correspond to that? DeCausa (talk) 11:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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

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


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