Talk:Anatolian peoples

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why is this Article Still Extant?[edit]

It seems it was a mess in 2009 - it's still largely a mess today years later. How has this existed for so long without being deleted? It really ought to be. 73.10.53.21 (talk) 00:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

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))[reply]

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 62.103.65.216 (talk) 10:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author, and I just made clear the history.[edit]

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)[reply]

"were almost culturally eliminated by Byzantines" - What? Do you know how many "Anatolians" were actually emperor of the Byzantine Empire? Whether they be Armenians or Isaurians there were a fair amount of them. What is a "Byzantine" exactly, anyway? Do you mean Greek, or Roman? The statement needs more explanation because it is bordering on ridiculous. It seems to me you didn't 'make clear the history' as much as you clearly made up some of the history. 73.10.53.21 (talk) 00:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Submitting to other empires"[edit]

......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)[reply]

Sea Peoples[edit]

As they weren't linguistically Anatolian, they are being deleted. --Yalens (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally fail article[edit]

(Um, "generally fail article" sounds like some punk kid made this section. Slang?? Please.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.2.50 (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Isaurians most certainly existed - they are the peoples of the Taurus mountains region. Now, that they are a subset of a larger people isn't denied.50.111.2.50 (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of the article[edit]

It's clear what this article is about from its opening sentence: "Anatolian peoples were a group of distinct Indo-European peoples who spoke the Anatolian languages."

The so-called "Anatolian descendants" are an arbitrary, non-scholarly list which is outside of the scope of the article. --Mttll (talk) 10:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

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. Cúchullain t/c 16:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • Support - current title is quite bad indeed.--Staberinde (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - neutral term; avoids the conrtoversial issue of extinction. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The present title (Anatolians, just in case anyone takes it upon themself to move this article yet again while this discussion is taking place) is ambiguous, and could just as easily refer to the present-day inhabitants of Anatolia, which the article does not cover. Article titles are required to be sufficiently precise that the reader isn't left confused, which the present title fails miserably in. A possible suitable alternative would be Ancient peoples of Anatolia, which would match Category:Ancient peoples by country and Category:Ancient peoples by region. Skinsmoke (talk) 07:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • "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)[reply]
  • Support - Ancient Anatolians. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Phrygians?[edit]

I just wonder why this group isn't included. In case there is some kind of objection I believe there is no reason for exclusion.Alexikoua (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because their language does not belong to the Anatolian branch of Indo-European. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ancient Anatolians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Kurds[edit]

Are the modern Kurds related to the ancient Anatolian peoples? 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:A465:6D01:A997:4290 (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anatolian_peoples&oldid=1195717032"