Citations and Relevancy to the Article[edit]

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)[reply]

RfC: Should the map be changed?[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
WP:ORMEDIA explicitly excludes maps that simply re-present sourced information from being considered OR. JM (talk) 08:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Also it's shocking you managed to vote Oppose, even though the current map is biased. Bogazicili (talk) 11:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Wikipedia appears to be a leading authority on "cultural constructs" [1]
Categories