Talk:Anatolia

RfC: Should the map be changed?

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.

---

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 . 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 , 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 . 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 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 , 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)
• Note This RfC was opened almost 4 months ago. Multiple new sources have been added since then. Bogazicili (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

References

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.

Wrong terminology

THe hettite Toponyms are ancient greek. 2A01:C22:B05C:3E00:39D2:4AAA:706B:2526 (talk) 11:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

"Asie Mineure" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Asie Mineure 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/2025 May 25 § Asie Mineure until a consensus is reached. Duckmather (talk) 04:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I think the i’s should be changed to Turkish ı’s where necessary

Such as where in Osmanli - we should be seeing Osmanlı instead. It should be written correctly so people learn correctly. Gizemalemdar (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. It isn't written correctly in English with the Turkish 'i'. We don't need 'people [to] learn correctly'. This is the English language version of Wikipedia, not the Turkish version. My 2 cents. Masterhatch (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

You're correct. I'm all for correct spellings but writing the word with the Turkish spelling in an English article just doesn't make sense. Every name written exactly how it was when borrowed/coined and then further developed by English makes the most sense. 2001:2044:1600:200:59D1:C6B4:8D79:7B1E (talk) 07:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia and we shouldn't be using Osmanli or Osmanlı. In English we say "Ottoman", not Osmanli or Osmanlı. I've changed it in the article. The word can appear in Ottoman names/terms eg Osmanlı Hürriyet Cemiyeti but, otherwise, English language WP:RS don't use it and we shouldn't either. DeCausa (talk) 12:02, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes I agree to this comment. It doesn't matter if it's an English article, it we are using a word that has a special character, it should be written with that special character or the translation instead where in this case your example is right, it should be either Ottoman (which in this case makes more sense), or Osmanlı with the Turkish special character where necessary. As 'Osmanli' as a word does not exist. Gizemalemdar (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Actually that's not Wikipedia policy. See WP:DIACRITICS. If you read that you'll see that the approach that's been adopted is to follow how English-language reliable sources treat the modified letter. In most cases, RS do tend to keep the modified letter anyway eg the ğ in Erdoğan, hence Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. But that's the test in WP. DeCausa (talk) 12:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

An obvious example of the application of the policy is that it's always Istanbul, never İstanbul here. DeCausa (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you that's very useful! I will have a detailed look. Gizemalemdar (talk) 12:31, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Early Greek presence

The sentence tagged by UpdateNerd seems very suspicious.

The source:

• has no page numbers
• very dated, almost 60 years old (from 1966)
• non-academic (Charles Scribner's Sons)
• Higher quality sources contradict it. The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia: (10,000-323 BCE), Oxford University Press, 2011, pp 369-370:

  The only clear evidence we have for signicant Mycenaean settlement anywhere in the Near Eastern region is at Miletus on the southwestern Anatolian coast, at the mouth of the Maeander River, and at the site now called Müsgebi, further to the south, where a large number of Late Helladic IIIA–C chamber tombs have come to light (Mee 1978:137–42).

• Not a high quality source, but still, Britannica :

  Before the Greek migrations that followed the end of the Bronze Age (c. 1200 bce), probably the only Greek-speaking communities on the west coast of Anatolia were Mycenaean settlements at Iasus and Müskebi on the Halicarnassus peninsula and walled Mycenaean colonies at Miletus and Colophon.

I am removing it for now. Bogazicili (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Recent revert of additions

@Bogazicili has recently reverted an edit, that I believe could have been easily kept with some minor modification, saying that the sources "are not overview sources about Anatolia" and no other justification.

Firstly, this article, and all other articles, have reliable, non-overview sources throughout; especially for information that is harder to find, even if still necessary for the article. While certain writers in the field might have found certain information not worthwhile that we have, as a community, found worthwhile in a summary of a topic. This is natural, and has to do with the differing goals of a scholarly paper, book and an encyclopedia.

I find the summary text about the success and influence of Greek city-states in Anatolia to be a perfectly reasonable addition, and I find the roots of Western rationalism to be an important subject, even though I find the wording to be less than ideal. I am unsure as to why Bogazicili has resorted to such an impossible standard (that in my experience almost no large-scope Wikipedia article can meet) for the inclusion of perfectly reasonable text.

I have also not seen any claim anywhere in the policies and guidelines of the encyclopedia that restricts the only acceptable sources to be "overview sources", nor have I seen inclusion and non-inclusion criteria based on WP:DUE to be related to whether sourcing is 'overview', only whether it's reliable. That is to say, in my view, there is source reliability per WP:RS and whether a text is WP:DUE, and no such thing as a source being WP:UNDUE while a text is WP:DUE. If someone believes that the text is WP:UNDUE I find that a more logical argument. Uness232 (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I find the summary text about the success and influence of Greek city-states in Anatolia to be a perfectly reasonable addition, and I find the roots of Western rationalism to be an important subject ...

Those are your personal opinions. We need to go by sources in Wikipedia.

The entire article is a disaster and needs to be re-written from overview sources.

WP:DUEness is determined through a variety of ways. For example, you can consult WP:Tertiary sources: Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other.

But a tertiary source, such as encyclopedia entry about Anatolia, would be even much shorter than a book about History of Anatolia. Bogazicili (talk) 15:15, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Those are your personal opinions. We need to go by sources in Wikipedia.

Your statement implies that somehow I am suggesting something that doesn't go by the sources. I am suggesting keeping material that seems to be reliably sourced, and I am laying forward my arguments for why it seems to be WP:DUE, which necessitates personal opinion. There is nothing contradicting our goal to use verifiable sources on Wikipedia here.

The entire article is a disaster and needs to be re-written from overview sources.

And that's a personal opinion on your end. A perfectly valid one too; and hell I'm not happy with some parts of the article myself. But to claim that my point is somehow invalid because my argument on whether something is WP:DUE rests on personal opinion while providing a personal opinion that the article "is a disaster" and needs to be re-written with "overview sources" (still don't know what policy or guideline says this or what your rationale is) is quite ironic. Those are all your personal opinions, and that's fine. But that's why WP:CONSENSUS exists. We have debate and we build consensus, this isn't a zero sum game of sources.

Anyway, about WP:DUEness as you said it is based on multiple factors. My argument is content-based. Greek city states may have been limited in Anatolia in early periods, but what they achieved there according to the statements provided seems notable, interesting, and encyclopedic to me. Most of what WP:DUE is, is assassing bias. It doesn't cover (edit: I don't mean to say that DUE does not apply here, I mean to say that the content of the page doesn't have much to say prescriptively about our current situation) more banal editorial decisions like this one. I am also not opposed to see Tertiary sources and seeing what they cover, but I also don't believe that is going to be our entire discussion; per the policy you quoted: Reliable tertiary sources can help provide (...) and may help evaluate, not decide. Uness232 (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this article needs to be re-written using sources such as parts of history sections using The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia: (10,000-323 BCE) and not sources such as "Georges Roux – Ancient Iraq" (from 1966 apparently) or historyfiles.co.uk.

If you do not know what policies cover these, you can ask in WP:Teahouse Bogazicili (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

You are questioning the sources based on WP:RS and WP:AGEMATTERS, which I never said anything against (and for the record I agree, The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia is a much better source than both). You questioned the sources based on the fact that they are not "overview sources", which I objected to. The reliable, new sources you find may not always be "overview" sources, your insistence on which is frankly strange and unsupported by policy in my opinion. Uness232 (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Maybe we are not clear about what I mean by "overview sources"

The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia: (10,000-323 BCE) could be considered an overview source for Anatolia#Prehistoric_Anatolia and Anatolia#Ancient_Anatolia sections.

It's written by experts on Anatolia, whereas "Georges Roux – Ancient Iraq" could have been written by an expert on Mesopotamia. That is WP:RSCONTEXT.

Furthermore, if you randomly select sources such as "Anaximander: And the Birth of Science and Philosophic Classics Ancient Philosophy, Volume I", there is WP:BALASP concerns. It's better to see DUEness in overview sources. If something is significant to be covered in Ancient Anatolia section in this article, it'd be in The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia too.

Once DUEness is established, I don't mind using other sources if they are high quality. Bogazicili (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I understand the concern about WP:RSCONTEXT, and I agree that the Oxford source is a better one. If indeed there was contradiction between the two sources, I would understand your concern about this edit to far more of an extent. I am unconvinced that DUEness has to be established through the lens of other sources though; when talking about the inclusion of uncontroversial (but optional) material, I believe DUEness and WP:BALASP to also be a product of the needs specific to the page, and not necessarily those of tertiary sources. Our own judgement, and therefore WP:CONSENSUS should be the important pointers as to what gets included or excluded, provided everything is reliably sourced.

In this specific case; I believe the content Khirurg has added to the page is interesting, encylopedic material, as it describes events directly relating to the development of other, Wikipedia-page worthy phenomena. I say this even if I would phrase the sentences differently. Uness232 (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

And no one is preventing you from seeking consensus through WP:DR such as an RfC.

I said my opinion and you said your opinion. Two people can disagree. Bogazicili (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Also see WP:BALASP Bogazicili (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Exactly, and we're here to decide what's balanced. Uness232 (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I much prefer the current source, however specific page numbers needed. More than 20 is a bit too much. Bogazicili (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Khirurg, I am now concerned about WP:OR

The source:

Greek cities on the shores of Asia Minor and on the Aegean islands were the nexus of trade and cultural exchange in the early Greek world, so Archaic Greek civilization was to a great extent the product of the Greek cities of Asia Minor

Text: The Greek cities on the coast of Anatolia reached high levels of prosperity thanks to extensive trade

Where does "high levels of prosperity" come from? Can you provide page number and quote? Bogazicili (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Beyond WP:OR concerns, which, looking at the source and what it says independent of historical fact, I agree with you on; I would argue that "high levels of prosperity" is not good wording to begin with. It's a horribly overused historical cliche and I believe it is better to replace it with a less ambitious wording, perhaps even a direct quote. Uness232 (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Khirurg, can you please say how the source justifies your wording? Bogazicili (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Did you read the source? If you had, you would have seen that the source clearly states By their colonizing and trade, the East Greeks renewed Hellenic contact with the Near East and thus assured the prosperity and cultural flowering of their cities in the Archaic Age.. These constant demands for sourcing are becoming tedious and a matter of concern regarding your behavior. I suggest you WP:AGF and adopt a more collaborative attitude or admin intervention will be requested. Khirurg (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

And again here The cities of East Greece prospered during the Archaic age because of the peace and prosperity imposed by the Phrygian kings of Gordion in the ninth and seventh centuries b.c.e., and then the Lydian kings at Sardis, from the mid-seventh to mid-sixth centuries b.c.e.. Khirurg (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Your original wording was "high levels of prosperity". The above quotes still do not justify that wording.
• The above quotes were in page 754 and page 756. These weren't in the ranges you put
• Your current wording is better: The Greek cities on the coast of Anatolia propsered thanks to extensive trade.... You should have used this wording initially, and used page numbers as 754, 756, and 760–761
• Your initial page range of 22 pages was hard to verify.
• Remember that WP:V is a core content criteria and WP:ONUS is on you. That includes addressing WP:OR concerns and putting page numbers appropriately. Bogazicili (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  Any good-faith user that read the Harl chapter in its entirety would completely agree that my wording, both the original and current, is fully backed by the source. That's why I included all the pages in the chapter originally. This degree of aggressive nitpicking is bordering on WP:HOUND, WP:PEDANTRY, and WP:AXE, to mention just a few. Khirurg (talk) 04:35, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing

Also please be careful about WP:CLOP

• Original wording in source: From 750 B.C.E., the East Greeks too set themselves aside from other Anatolian peoples, designated barbarians, by a new concept, the polis.
• Your wording: From 750 BC, they also set themselves apart from other Anatolians, regarded as barbarians, through the concept of the polis

The sentence structure is same. Bogazicili (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Fixed Bogazicili (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Here's another one.

• Source: By 900 B.C.E., Greek settlements stretched from the entrances of the Hellespont to the peninsula of Knidos
• Added text: By 900 BC, Greek settlements could be found from the entrance of the Hellespont to Knidos

Khirurg I am adding a tag for the section, please check your work for WP:CLOP Bogazicili (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

The tag was unnecessary, and for good measure, I rewrote the particular sentences. I remind you to be WP:CIVIL as this section was created because you removed sourced material without a good reason, and not on lecturing others. Thank you. A.Cython (talk) 04:30, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Too much politic views in a geographic definition

Since Anatolia is predominantly a geographic definition the politic discussions such west armanian, genocide claims ...etc is not suitable for this article. On the other hand the Anatolian territorry is under the Turkish states like Sejuk, Ottoman, Turkiye since 1071, this means more than 1000 years. Why we need still the old names and politic discussion here? Turkiye has authority to decide the naming of this region not the dreams of some people. Imagine , would it be appropriate to describe the armanian highland for example like south-Russia highland ? ~2026-34829-45 (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Articles on Wikipedia are about the article subject, in all their contexts. Geographic names often have political implications, and indeed there is no reason to excise such content per WP:TOPIC.

As for your (admittedly rather silly) historical equivalence that Turkish control equals the suppression of historical names: whatever is to be said about the "Turkish" nature of the Ottomans and especially the Seljuks, the erasure of the historical names of these regions have little to do with most of their 1000-year-old history. The suppression of the name Armenia(n highlands) referring to what is now "Eastern Anatolia" dates back to the last decades of the Ottoman Empire, and Kurdistan's erasure is altogether more recent. Evliya Çelebi had no scruples using either term with no apparent subversive intention. Uness232 (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment; it was valuable to read your perspective. In my view, using names other than "Eastern Anatolia Region" to refer to the eastern part of Turkey—thereby creating a specific perception—serves only a political agenda. While such names might be cited for historical context, it is important to distinguish between politics and factual information; otherwise, we would be unable to use Wikipedia articles as references in any publication. ~2026-34829-45 (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Your clean separation of politics and fact doesn't hold. Calling the east of Turkey "Eastern Anatolia", however factual for our time, is intensely political: it implicitly accepts the deliberate erasure of non-Turkish toponyms undertaken by the Turkish government and is implicitly sympathetic to Turkish nation-building, at least in its assimilatory capacity. Likewise, using "Armenia(n highlands)" is political, but also factual as far as historically-informed names are concerned. The switch and the erasure, too, are also both factual in occurrence and political in nature.

About perception, the goal of Wikipedia in these articles tends to be reflecting WP:RS, so the goal is not "no perception" per se; often it is the opposite: a perception that matches someone who's read mainstream works about the subject. The article and global mainstream scholarship in terms of Turkish toponymic change seems to match, which is what we care about. If you have an objection in these terms, as in, if you think the academic consensus is not what the article says it is, it is better to frame it as such, not as politics being in the article. Uness232 (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Your explanation doesn't hold up either. Eighty place names were changed by the Armenian government after the Russian Armenian period. (reference : Please see https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/26013 )

However, the english Wikipedia article on Armenia does not mention any of these old names. Why ?

This different approach could be explained by the fact that it is a matter of politics, not academic consensus or objectivity. ~2026-34829-45 (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

You will make a grave category error if you start thinking of Wikipedia is a homogenous entity with fixed biases and reasonings. We are all individual actors with our own unconscious biases, arguing with each other in dialogue with WP:PAGs. When removing content, pointing to potential bias elsewhere (whether it exists or not), to editors that have had zero hand in making that content, is not productive on Wikipedia, and will get you nowhere, as it reads as whataboutism. A good argument making a case for removal would try to argue either 1) the content does not meaningfully improve the encyclopedia or 2) the content does not match the expectations of our WP:PAGs. The second, as interpersonal currency, is more valuable. The content here seems to be in line with our WP:PAGs, and to me, it seems like it meaningfully improves the encyclopedia, so I see no reason to remove. So, if indeed you want a change made to the encyclopedia, the healthier approach may be to add toponymic changes elsewhere. Indeed, there's nothing categorical stopping anyone from documenting what WP:RS say on Armenian (or other such) toponymic changes on specific articles (though probably not on Armenia, as toponymic changes are often featured only on the article of the topics themselves, and Armenia's name is not what's changed) as long as this is judged to be what WP:RS represent. What is often more contentious, and, not coincidentally, what bites here, is what counts as reliable, what represents the mainstream, what should be foregrounded per WP:DUE. These are the hard discussions, and when there is bias, it often surfaces there, and in a variety of directions. You are welcome to weigh in on these discussions. That being said, the source you present would not be considered there for one main reason: it reads as, and its background assertions are, extremely WP:PARTISAN. Just in the beginning, asserting an answer to a contentious question: "Biz burada Karabağ'ın Türk toprağı olduğu hakkındaki araştırmalara bir yenisini eklemek niyetinde değiliz. Dünya'nın da kabul ettiği gibi; Karabağ (...) bir Türk toprağıdır ve bu konuda hiç kimsenin bir şüphesi yoktur ve olmamalıdır." ("We are not here to add to the [wealth of] research on the fact that Karabakh is Turk[ic/ish] land. As the world accepts, Karabakh (...) is Turk[ic/ish] land, and no one has, or should have, any doubt about this.") is rather shocking academic discipline, and is immediately followed by "[Kamuoyunun] bildikleri de Ermenilerin uydurdukları yalanlardır." ("What they [international public opinion] know are lies fabricated by the Armenians.") and editors will undoubtedly notice and dispute and rightly flag WP:PARTISAN. You would need better sources than this. Uness232 (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2026 (UTC)