Talk:Anatolia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


RfC about opinion quote from art student[edit]

No consensus. Very skimpy participation in the RfC. Honestly, it does seem hard to believe that the best that we can do about for a source about a historically significant, heavily populated, and otherwise rather important feature of geography be writing about art history; but that should be for the participants to judge, here there just weren't very many participants. --GRuban (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

Note that the full article is about art history. This is the link to the full article: [1] RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 23:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC). Seraphim System (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Poll[edit]

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

Extended Discussion[edit]

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

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

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

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

Complaint about neutrality of RfC statement[edit]

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

Asia Minor vs Anatolia[edit]

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

Odd claim, since the word Anatolia was not "relatively recent, man-made, invented, and totally ahistorical place name, which is used in the Republic of Turkey to replace the historically known toponym of Asia Minor or Eastern Asia Minor". The word Anatolia, in case you weren't aware of it is of Greek origin. Yes, Greeks generally use Mikrā Asiā (Asia Minor) instead of Anatolia. But the word Anatolia comes from the Greek word Anadholi or Turkish word Anadolu. The origin of the word is Greek. And in Greek it means "east, sunrise". It is even ridiculous that you can claim something like this without backing it up. MrUnoDosTres (talk) 06:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anatolia&oldid=918766566"