This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Ancient Anatolians is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.
How about some sources to back up some of these claims?
This article is a complete mess. If it can't be expertly reworked pretty swiftly, it looks a good candidate for deletion.(Lewvalton (talk) 12:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC))
This article was written by a Turk as his/her IP address reveals. It seams biased and follows, to some extend, the recently adapted official turkish positions on territorial claims against neighboring countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 10:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I am the author, and I just made clear the history.
I am not a Turk, I just listed the effects Turks had on the region, and most of them seemed to be beneficial, in the eyes of many native Anatolians. This is history, not my opinion. The Anatolians, after all, were almost culturally eliminated by Byzantines, who used their villages as forts to repel invading Muslims. I am not taking sides, I am just pointing out facts. For example, in the article about Hitler, the author does not say that he is a terrible person, they just say he was considered terrible by many. Does that make the article biased? I would think not. I am just saying that the Turks were beneficial to many peoples of the region, not that they were period, which would be biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GooglePedia12 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
......this whole sections is a failure from a factual point of view. I mean, it might make a good conversation, as a comparison. But it does not belong on a factual encyclopedia, as it is one editors interpretation of history. I am deleting it.
...in fact this whole page is a little "uh", but it can be improved, I understand. --Yalens (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay. There are so many problems here. I'll list a few.
1) The whole page is based around some users historical theories, which have no citation whatsoever. 2) Many of the peoples listed here were not linguistically Anatolian Indo-European 3) Some of the peoples are just made up and never existed (like "Isaurians") 4) It is generally factually wanting and OR-based (or not even original research, more like original opinions). 5) It tries to connect ancient events erroneously to modern history 6) "Anatolians" may not have had any sense that they were "Anatolian" in the first place, just like our "Siberians" have never had a pan-Siberian identity, nor have Native Americans had one until very recently.
...I could go on. I am going to go on a deleting spree, then write stuff. But I'm not sure I can sustain interest in this page (which maybe should be deleted...) for long...--Yalens (talk) 19:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
In general, the point of the article pushes forward the notion that they should have unified to form a confederacy to protect themselves from foreign invaders, which is awkward, as it is an interpretation of historical events from a very modern perspective. It is more or less WP:POINT... in a weird way. --Yalens (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Move. This version has by far the most support. Anatolians will become a disambiguation page. Cúchullaint/c 16:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Anatolians (extinct Indo-European people) → Ancient Anatolians – Although the Anatolian languages are extinct, the people themselves are not. This is a stupid title and seems to be the POV pushing / move warring of the editor who performed this move. His previous move was also poorly done, without fixing any redirects and without paying any attention to smooth functioning of Wikipedia. See one such source why Anatolian people themselves are not extinct [Yardumian, A., & Schurr, T. G. (2011). Who Are the Anatolian Turks?. Anthropology & Archeology Of Eurasia, 50(1), 6-42. doi:10.2753/AAE1061-1959500101] (c&pasted abstract: User:Cavann/sandbox) Cavann (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Support. The current title is unreadable and unnatural. Using an article title for pov-pushing is a bad idea. bobrayner (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Support - current title is quite bad indeed.--Staberinde (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Support - neutral term; avoids the conrtoversial issue of extinction. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Note that the article has been moved again. It should be moved to Ancient Anatolians and stay like that.Cavann (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
"Anatolians" in the context of this article are identified with a set of Indo-European languages they spoke, which happen to be extinct, not with their genetics. I was the one who proposed "Ancient Anatolians" in the first place and it was reverted. Instead of insisting on it I proposed something else. "Anatolians" should obviously be changed as it can also mean present-day Anatolians, but I'm feeling some people intend to have that confusion in the article on purpose. Ironically, they accuse others of POV-pushing. --Mttll (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.