Talk:Anatolia

European is an ambiguous term and is not the name of an ethnicity.

If someone said that the region of Ethiopia is populated by people of African ethnicities, or that Madagascar has a population partially of Asian/Austronesian origin, nobody would dispute that. But to say that "European" can actually refer to European ethnicities has somehow been warped during the 20th century into being perceived as a far-right concept... This is a double standard, which isn't being applied to other ethnic-spheres such as Native Americans, Africans, Polynesians, Chinese, Indians etc. Inuit don't stop being Inuit because of which side of the Bering Straight they're on, and the hundreds of millions of Semites don't stop being Semites depending on whether they're in Africa instead of Asia. Nobody would try to say that the Turkic peoples who live inside continental Europe aren't Turkic because of which side of the sea they're on.

a part of the European ethnic-sphere I agree: a part of the Persian Empire, those of Alexander and his successors, of Rome, the Eastern Roman (i.e. Byzantine) Empire, but never part of a "European ethnic-sphere" whatever an "ethnic-sphere" might be. Wetman 03:27, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

___

maybe history of Anatolia makes sense for the Classical period (which I doubt, I think its Europeanistic thinking, but never mind), but it simply doesn't fit for the prehistoric period. What about creating a page 'prehistory of Turkey'? - which is simply based on current territory, not on any cultural (can't see the 'ethnic') entity?

--Yak 19:32, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're trying to say. Besides, Turkey is a national entity created by Turkic colonialism; ancient Anatolia is in no way "prehistoric Turkey" any more than ancient North America is "prehistoric U.S.A.". Crusadeonilliteracy 23:18, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There exists no "prehistoric Turkey", neither in Anatolia, nor anywhere else. First appearance of Turks in Anatolia is in the late 10th century BC. --Spryom 13:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Map

I think we should get another map. This one highlights Turkey, not Anatolia.

A change in image markup broke the display of the caption text. I've updated it. Jamesday 01:46, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Europeanistic?

FYI: Eurocentric

medieval times?

"Today the inhabitants of Anatolia are mostly Turkish speakers, due to the conquest of Anatolia by Turkic peoples (and subsequent Islamification) in mediaeval times"

This is not true. The multiethnic character of Anatolia ended abruptly early in the 20th century. Anatolia was in ancient times Hellenic. After the battle of Mantzikert in 1071AD, the first Turks in significant numbers poured in. From that point on and until the Lausanne treaty in 1923, Anatolia was multiethnic, with Turks, Greeks, Armenians and Kurds in the east, being the main ethnic populations, along with others (like Assyrians, Jews, etc.) in smaller numbers. Proof of the multiethnic character of Anatolia are the turkish official population data of 1912. The present day "ethnically clean" turkic Anatolia is the result of the genocidal policies of Kemalism, with millions of victims, and after 1923, the exchange of populations provided by the Lausanne treaty. --Spryom 12:20, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is right. It is still true, however, that ultimately, it is due to the conquest, which happened in medieval times. But a statement hinting at what you say should be added, if possible phrased not to attract pov warriors (this is not the place to have discussions about the Armenian genocide). dab (ᛏ) 10:40, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are not involved with the history nor the truth, you are just trying to push your so called genocide propoganda using Wiki. I have seen at least 4 posts from you about this, and you are still trying to inject genocide allegation irrelevant topics. You are hostile, your misinfomation using wiki is abuse.

Anatolia/Popular etymology

The reference to a turkish etymology of "Anatolia" as Ana-dolu is not correct. The term "Anatolia" for this area is ancient, it is included in ancient Greek and Byzantine writings, long before the turkic tribes appeared in the area and is the only correct etymology. The Turkish etynology has been invented centuries after the invention of the term itself. I suggest it is removed.--Spryom 13:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I think calling the Turkish meaning of Anatolia as FALSE popular etymologic information is crude behaviour. As far as I know even Europe is not a Greek word and its Sumerian oriented. Greek tribes vere living as independent cities, expecting ordinary Greeks whose life and vision is limited to small ranges to give a name to all Asia-minor even without any map making knowledge is quite questionable. They weren't even aware of the borders of Anatolia, Anatolia was just like Earth to them. This is also just like expcting people in ancient times to give PLANET a name. As you know our planet is called in many languages as the word which is used for to GROUND.

But Turks arrived later so they had clear differentiation sense about Asia-minor. I think new comers the named the Anatolia.

• It doesn't seem you understand European history and you're obviously not a European. Your arguments against Greek culture and history are so profoundly weak thet there's no point considering them whatsoever. --Spryom 08:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• • Definition with exclusion is a well known concept. You can not define somewhere or someting if you don't have clear sense about something that is not comprised by it. You must have a reference.

Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Anatolia article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Anatolia}} to this page. — LinkBot 10:30, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)