Jump to content

Talk:Middle East

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 66.183.11.233 (talk) at 22:44, 16 December 2010 (→Bahai faith?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:VA

Template:WP1.0

Need more info on the climate.

hey guys, I was reaind this article for info for my paper and there is absolutely no useable info on the climate of the region, can someone get some info with sources, especially on soil.

Typo

Can't edit it as it is semi-protected. there is a typo in the first two lines shown in italics:

The Middle East (or, formerly more common, the Near East[1]) is a region that spans southwestern Asia and northern Africa. Mistakenly and only in the last five to seven years some have added Pakistan, Afghanistan, and India to the list of Middle Eattren countries.

Could someone take care of this? Thanks Gomedog (talk) 06:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy of the term

"It is important to point out that the geographical term, Middle East, represents the point of view of those who live in the western part of the world and it is only accurate to use if you actually do live to the west of the Middle East."

I removed this from the lead paragraph because it is not true. People in Australia and New Zealand and India and South Africa use the term "middle east" accurately (Perth Sunday Times [1], New Zealand Herald [2], Times of India [3] South Africa's Mail and Guardian [4]) as I'm sure do english speakers everywhere else in the world. It is not at all important to point out that it is only technically "to the east but not all the way east" from one perspective in the lead. Something similar might be appropriate in the etymology section. Jieagles (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with you. The reason that sentence is there is because some users are very, very keen to state that the "Middle East" is a Eurocentric term right at the outset. In fact, a while back, a group of users wanted to pretty much re-write the article along those lines. --Athenean (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So do I. The Daily Star from Beirut [5] and the Asia Times from Hong Kong [6] have Middle East sections, too. --Ankimai (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So my edit was reverted, then reinstated and the reverted again so instead of continuing the edit war I would like to propose a compromise sentence which hopefully will keep the idea that the term represents a European perspective while not stating that the term should not be used in other regions when clearly it is. I would suggest, "As a geographic term, the name reflects the European perspective of its early users, though it is now used throughout the English-speaking world" I look forward to the discussion. Jieagles (talk) 00:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. --Athenean (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a descriptive encyclopedia, so sentences that start with "mistakenly" are generally out of place. I've removed the commentary sections from the lead paragraph. The "Middle East" is what it is and it doesn't matter if some people don't like it. The comment about it being only accurate for those who live to the west is utterly silly. You are claiming that English speakers in Australia and India should not use it. That's an utterly ridiculous assertion. (Taivo (talk) 01:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I completely agree. I have added a "sometimes" to your edits in the lead, regarding the inclusion of north africa and south asia. However, given the history of the article I would not be surprised if your edits were reverted, with or without comment here, which is why I was trying to create a consensus. Jieagles (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Location of the Middle east is in Central Asia (Kazakastan, Turkministan, Kyrgystan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, some times even Mongolia). You have forgot to mention that Gulf Arab states don't use these terminology to refer to themselves.

Middle East = Central Asia i.e. Middle = Central. The term was first coined by the British Empire to refer to their empire. Parts of China was also considered part of the "Middle East" since it was under the British control. Also India to some degree was also part of their "Middle East" but the information failed to give any information about India. As the information shows you put the terms Middle East to refer it to the "Near East" which doesn't make any sence since Middle and Near are to different words and pysical locations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.201.18 (talk) 14:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Terms which are properly used in those regions Countries for that Region are Mesopotamia(Iraq), Levantine Countries(Syria, Lebanon, Palestine/Israel, Jordan), Arabian Peninsula(Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Oman, Yemen) Not this superficial British term called "Middle East" which makes the person in using the words falsly attribute it to the "Middle of the East" Meaning the location wise it would be probably some where in Mongolia or Kazakistan which is where it should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.201.18 (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not Altaic

Scythian, unless you are a trained historical linguist like I am, I suggest that you back off your insistence on calling Turkish "Altaic". That is a term for a sprachbund, not a valid linguistic family. Most historical linguists rejected the notion of Altaic 30 or so years ago, even though a few still cling to it. I've been teaching linguistics at the university level for 30 years and know a bit more about the subject that you do. Turkish is "Turkic", not "Altaic". You've asked for a "third opinion", so I've asked two other (real-world) professionals in historical linguistics to weigh in here. (Taivo (talk) 20:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just like you, I have no less than 15 Ph.D's in the field of linguistics. So, lets get a third opinion on this matter, and perhaps a fourth and fifth. All from credentialed Wikipedia editors, of course. The Scythian 20:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am one of the professionals Taivo asked to chip in. I agree that Altaic is not generally recognized as a demonstrated linguistic family. The best and most neutral description of Turkish is that it "is a Turkic language and that as such it has been included in the controversial Altaic hypotheis".·Maunus·ƛ· 08:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lyle Campbell & Mauricio J. Mixco, A Glossary of Historical Linguistics (2007, pg. 7): "While 'Altaic' is repeated in encyclopedias and handbooks most specialists in these languages no longer believe that the three traditional supposed Altaic groups, Turkic, Mongolian and Tungusic, are related." There's your authoritative quote. I suggest that you cease your personal attacks, as well, Scythian. I've been teaching linguistics at a major US university for longer than most Wikipedia editors have been able to legally drink. (Taivo (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Good! You finally have a single source, and that is exactly what is needed. Stating that you are an "expert" and therefore "correct" is meaningless here, and a false argument at that. Your claim to teach linguistics at a major university are non-verifiable and irrelevant to Wikipedia, according to the above noted policies. Unless of course you are using a scholarly published source that you have actually written, which I would completely support you doing so. As far as personal attacks are concerned, I haven't made any so far, but your attitude is clearly confrontational. Stating that you are in the right simply because of a claim to professorship is meaningless. Sources are what are needed. If you believe that the Altaic theory is obsolete(I do not necessarily disagree), then source it. Do not give the nonsense argument that your educational background is in this area, and you are therefore correct by default, and nothing more is needed. That defeats the very purpose of Wikipedia. I deliberately shy away from articles dealing with my educational and working professional background for that very reason. I want to avoid behaving in exactly such a manor that you are doing so here. So, I would hope to see from you no more orders to "back off" on account that you claim authoritative expertise in this field. It is really rather pointless, and it goes against the very grain of this project. Oh, and I almost forgot. Here is my source[7]. The Scythian 06:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want more sources about the controversiality of the altaic hypothesis you could read the Wikipedia article on Altaic it is quite explicit in stating that there is nowhere near agreement about what languages Altaic might include or if it is a valid grouping at all - and it is fairly well sourced. ·Maunus·ƛ· 08:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating, Scythian. You claim that your source supports Altaic, yet if you had read the source (from 1987!) you would find (on page 479) the statement, "All of us found that we regard the hypothesis of a grand Proto-Altaic family spanning the entire Eurasian landmass with considerable suspicion." And further down the page, "We found Proto-Altaic, at best, a premature hypothesis and a pragmatically poor foundation on which to build a research program." Pretty much end of story. Even in the "anonymous" world of Wikipedia, specialists tend to know what they are talking about. (Taivo (talk) 08:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • I never claimed anywhere that it did defend a "Altaic hypothesis", but only that it was a "source", or in this case a number of different sources digested into a single publication. As such, I wanted source(s), as opposed to an egoistical diatribe, and now we are starting to get them. That is good. I should also suggest that you might resist reading between the lines in my discussion postings. After all, with the cognitive faculties that you surely possess as a university level academic and scholar, you must realize the benefits of keeping a cool head in any debate. The Scythian 09:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cradle of Civilization

Using the phrase "cradle of civilization" is POV. If you want to rephrase to say that it's the "cradle of Western civiliation" (and link to the article on Western World or some such), then that's not POV. But to make the blanket statement that it is the cradle of "all" civilization is POV. (Taivo (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Giving into the fact that it is a commonly used Western term, and there exists a Wiki article on the "cradle of civilization", there is a need for some reference to the term in the article, no matter how the term is viewed in the modern context(I for one see it as obsolete). Completely removing the term is just strange. The concept does exist, and at the very least should be noted in some form. The Scythian 01:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to agree with Scythian here. The civilizations of the ME predate those of any other region, including those of the Indus River Valley and China, and I know that Jared Diamond at least believes that agriculture and writing first arose there and spread to the rest of the world. The civilization of the ME has also had a profound impact on the civilization of India, not just the West. But regardless of this, there are numerous sources that refer to the ME as the "cradle of civilization" and this should be mentioned somehow. Now, this should be done carefully and in a measured manner, i.e. not some Izzedine-style claim that "The ME is cradle of civilization and everything good!", but should be done nonetheless. Athenean (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So let's work on some good wording here on the Talk page. I'm not averse to that, but let's get the POV out of the article until then. Yes, it's been called the "cradle of civilization" many times, but the U.S. has also been called "the land of the free" many times as well. That doesn't mean we have to produce it as an accepted fact just because it has appeared in print. (Taivo (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
If we are to believe Michael Mann, who discusses the matter at quite a length in The Sources of Social Power: A history of power from the beginning to A.D. 1760, there were at least four cradles:
"... only a few cases of the emergence of civilization were autonomous. So far as we know, there were four literate, urban, and ceremonially centered groups that seem to have arisen independently of each other in Eurasia: the Sumerians of Mesopotamia; the Egyptians of the Nile Valley; the Indus Valley civilization in present-day Pakistan; and the people of several North China river valleys, beginning with the Yellow River. Only the earliest, Sumer, is certainly independent, and so there has been periodic interest in diffusion and conquest theories of the other cases. However, the present consensus among specialists is to accord all four probable independent status. To these some add a fifth, the Minoans of Crete, though this is disputed. If we turn to other continents, we can, perhaps, add two further cases, the pre-Columbian civilizations of Mesoamerica and Peru, probably not in contact with one another, and independent of Eurasia. This makes a probable total of six independent cases. However, no two authors agree on exact numbers." (1986; p.74) - Ankimai (talk) 11:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That quote shows quite well that to call any one place "cradle of civilization (unqualified)" would be plain wrong. I don't see why "cradle of western civilization" would be problematic? Except for the fact that "civiolization" is actually itself a quite bad term that doesn't really have a good or all accepted definition.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 217.216.89.35, 17 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Ir reads "Caucacus", should read "Caucasus"

217.216.89.35 (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done and thanks! --JokerXtreme (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Middle East

 Done --Antime •(Talk) 14:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Ethiopia not considered part of the Middle East?

I was wondering that why isn't Ethiopia considered part of the Middle East? It has a long history of association with the Middle East culturally and historically. Its population is Semitic, it has been deeply associated with Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Moreover, it is surrounded on the northern and eastern sides by Middle East. So why not consider as a part of the Middle East? Can anyone help?(QadeemMusalman (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Many areas surrounding the Middle East have been influenced by the region, but they are not geographically considered part of the Middle East. (Taivo (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

It is clear that the powers that be want to define the middle east as Muslim countries from looking at the map. Also from llooking at the map, they might as well quit while they are ahead because those are too many pieces of land to call a region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.179.161 (talk) 04:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why insisting on Pakistan and Afghanistan to be part of Middle East?

Just because these countries have a Muslim population it does not mean they are part of the Middle East. People should stop posting wrong information on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipersian (talk • contribs) 06:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan can be considered the greater Middle east because of historical and geo political reasons. Afghanistan's culture is influenced very much by Arab and Iranian cultures (even their both the main languages in the country are derived from the Middle East), and being a muslim country has nothing to do with Afghanistan being apart of the middle east because Afghanistan was apart of the Persian Empire, so there for if Iran is in the middle east Afghanistan should be there also because of the Iranian plateau. Now Pakistan should not be considered because culturally they are tied to India, which neither Iran or Afghanistan is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.102.231 (talk) 11:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan and Pakistan should be considered part the Middle East.

Afghanistan and Pakistan should be considered part of the Middle East because firstly Afghanistan is historically and geographically part of the Iranian Plateau and it has been part of the Persian, Parthian, Sassanind, Greek Empires and the Arab Ummayad and Abbasid dynasties. Moreover, there is a striking Persian culture in every part of Afghanistan.

As for Pakistan, of its four provinces two lie on the Iranian Plateau i.e. Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtoonwah (formerly NWFP). Half o the provinces of Balochistan is in Iran and half is in Pakistan. Moreover, Pakistan also has been part of the Persian, Parthian, Greek, Ummayad and Abbasid Empires.

The Sindh and Balochistan and South Punjab provinces were part of the Ummayad and Abbasid dynasties. Punjab was the part of the Persian Ghaznavid and Ghorid dynasties. The people of Balochistan and Khyber are Iranian Peoples. As for Islam yes it is not the only factor why Pakistan should be considered part of the Middle East, but undoubtedly Islam is a very significant factor. It is also because of language and culture that Pakistan should be considered part of the area known as the Middle East. Urdu is a blend of Arabic, Persian and Turkish. Urdu is written Nastaliq script which Arabo-Persian. Even Punjabi, is also written in Shahmukhi script again Arabo-Persian.

If you think of Bangldesh, Indonesia and Malaysia. I see those countries cut off from the rest of the Islamic world in culture and languages because Bangladesh, Indonesia and Malaysia are immensely influenced by the Asian Cultures and Bangladesh (esp by Hindu culture). Do not forget that Pakistan and India are staunchest enemies of each other. So, therefore Pakistan can never be tied up with India. Indian TV Channels are banned in Pakistan, there are huge trade restrictions and visa restrictions, citizens of both countries are reluctant to visit each other.

I think and believe that the areas stretching from Morocco and Balkans to Pakistan and from Russian Tatarstan to Sudan should be considered part of the same area. And Pakistan can never be tied up with India!

(QadeemMusalman (talk) 12:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]


Spelling

There are several spelling and grammer mistakes in the Languages section of the article... I feel it is somewhat ironic... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.178.203 (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Main article on ethnic groups of the Middle East no longer exists

There was a redirect to Demographics of the Arab League which is a somewhat different subject. So I changed main article hatnote to a see also hatnote to the Demographics article. - KeptSouth (talk) 10:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bahai faith?

In the intro, you are including bahai as a major religion?? is bahai a major religion??? I hope this is fixed soon. --216.249.0.227 (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is often included as such in recent decades. 66.183.11.233 (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC) (User:Zazaban, not logged in)[reply]

Timezones

There is: Time Zones UTC +8:00 (Tibet) to UTC +3:30 (Iran) But I know that Turkey, Egipt, Jordan. Lebanon (Syria?) are in UTC +2

Western Sahara Population

In the article I could not modify the part of the table, regarding the population of Wester Sahara. It is not 10.000.000 people (lika Tunisia!), but 513,000, as reported in the article regarding Western Sahara. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.97.48.100 (talk) 14:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Middle_East&oldid=402766522"