And your point other than a personal attack on my feelings of self worth (in direct violation of not just the rules but the ethos of Hacker News)?
Anatolia is a location, not a culture. This is an article on cultural changes. Using Anatolia, a large region of land, as a descriptor for culture seems weird an needlessly imprecise in an archeological/anthropological sense for an article talking about an impact on cultures (what cultures?). Why would someone use 'Greek-style athletic contests' when 'greek athletic contests' is a more accurate/direct/correct description?
It is totally valid to say 'I don't like the current trend of twisting words/obfuscating, it sucks and makes me defensive reading the article, and the use of this less descriptive subsubstition and zero direct mention triggered that distrust'. Or are you saying I should just brainlessly consume everything I read online and to do otherwise is somehow not manly?
You should read more carefully to start with before accusing everything you see that does not fit into your narrative.
requiring n time the word Greek until you are satisfied is a you problem. I don't care enough about you to attack you personally. If you read more on these you would not get stuck in these accounting problems.
Why lead with more personally directed comments? Instead help me understand how a geographic area that has changed cultures is the best way to refer to the culture being talked about? At least refer to XYZ/ABC/123 populated Anatolia or something (I get it can get somewhat blurry in that area and time). I don't think the linguistic root of the geographic area's name gives all that much context and think they cop out because interdisciplinary politics of if ABC or XYZ is Greek but they then leave unread people like myself uninformed who they are talking about.
They went into enough specifics to name individual cities but I admit I don't always know which cultures lived in which cities in which time periods off the top of my head. I remember just enough that calling it 'Greek style' for the Greek cities they named seemed wrong to me. I think it's more informative when articles gives at least a little insight to unread people like me on which populations they are referring to, not just geography:
Anatolia is a location, not a culture. This is an article on cultural changes. Using Anatolia, a large region of land, as a descriptor for culture seems weird an needlessly imprecise in an archeological/anthropological sense for an article talking about an impact on cultures (what cultures?). Why would someone use 'Greek-style athletic contests' when 'greek athletic contests' is a more accurate/direct/correct description?
It is totally valid to say 'I don't like the current trend of twisting words/obfuscating, it sucks and makes me defensive reading the article, and the use of this less descriptive subsubstition and zero direct mention triggered that distrust'. Or are you saying I should just brainlessly consume everything I read online and to do otherwise is somehow not manly?