It is actually "the Anatolian hypothesis". The thing with Turkey is that it has its own language which is not related to this, so the title can be confused for "English comes from Turkish"
To my knowledge, Anatolia is not a strictly historical region. So one can also say that Turkish is the majority language in Anatolia. Now you have the problem with people not knowing what Anatolia is, on top of the possible confusion between the Turkish language and the region that belongs to the Republic of Turkey today (Anatolia).
The title doesn't reference the Turkish language. If English, or the family of languages it belongs to, didn't originate near the British Isles, why would one readily assume that the Turkish language (or its family) originated in, and always belonged to, the region that is today known as Turkey?
"Not strictly historical" by which I mean; not only used as a historical region. So if it is still used to refer to the modern region in some cases (?), then it can be misleading in the same way that one uses "Turkey" to refer to that region; it can be misunderstood to refer to this modern region, while in fact one is talking about a time where that place had nothing to do with modern Turkey. (whew!)
> And the relevant linguistic hypothesis:
Who cares what linguists call it? This is presumably meant for a more general audience, an audience that probably knows where Turkey lies but may not have heard of Anatolia. Anatolia is only slightly smaller than modern Turkey, and is subsumed by it. I don't think it is misleading.
