This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography 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.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia articles
"The terms are partly coterminous with the Middle East - which describes geographical position in relation to Western Europe rather than location within Asia. Due to this perceived Eurocentrism, international organizations such as the United Nations,[2] have replaced Middle East and Near East with Western Asia."
Pardon my confusion, but isn't Middle East the preferred term for the region comprising Anatolia ("Asia Minor"), the Caucasus, Levant, Arabian Peninsula, and Iranian Plateu? If anything, the terms "West Asia" and "Southwest Asia" are far MORE "Eurocentric." (And shouldn't Europe thus be called "Northwest Asia?") If anything, lumping the Middle East in with Asia is objectionably racist, as if to imply, "yeah, yeah geologically Eurasia is one continent, but us Europeans are so special and superior, we will promote our peninsula to continental status, lumping those 'sand-niggers' and 'chinamen' into their continent!"
I always thought that Middle East was preferred as it recognizes such cultures as being no less unique then Europe. The old division of Eurasia into Europe proper and "Asia" is ultimately based, not on geography but Orientalism.
Borders
According to www.worldatlas.com, Most of what we call "Central Asia" is considered to be Middle Eastern. Is this because the culture is very alike or something?
To Cantus: In my edit that you have reverted, I have made two changes; let me try to substantiate them.
1. "usually the term Middle East includes North African countries and the part of Egypt in North Africa" doesn't make any logical sense to me. Isn't Egypt a North African country? From Egypt, "Egypt is the most populous nation of northeastern Africa ...". Although Egypt includes Sinai, which is purportedly in Asia, Egypt is still in North Africa. This is akin to the following: Alaska is to the North-West of Canada, but that doesn't stop us from saying that the US is South of Canada.
Now that Egypt is in North Africa, the sentence has to be re-worded; otherwise it makes no logical sense. I'll be happy to work with you and others to achieve logical correctness.
2. 'The term "West Asia" has become the preferred term of use in countries such as India, possibly because of the perceived Euro-centrism of the term "Middle East".'
Why has this been removed? It's a logical continuation of the previous sentence, and it's fact. It seems relevant to me in the context of the previous sentence about the popularity of the term. Note that although the article lives at Southwest Asia, it talks also about West Asia. Ambarish 12:16, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Definitely. That's why the statement refers "the part of Egypt in Africa"; in other words, the part of Egypt in Asia is *obviously* in the Middle East as it's also in West Asia - it's only the part of Egypt in Africa that has to be explicitly mentioned as being part of the Middle East (acc. to some). My above complaint was about the phrase "North African countries and the part of Egypt in North Africa". Egypt is an African country; it's in the North; it's thus a North African country (notwithstanding a part of it being in Asia). Am I off-base here? Ambarish | Talk12:37, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Less ambiguous?
The article claims this as a less ambiguous alternative to Middle East, yet India is said to use "west asia" as a preferred term, despite not appearing on our map or list of countries in this article. Is India part of this grouping or not? If not, is "West Asia" a separate thing that should be split out to another article, or is the usage simply ambiguous and inconsistent? --Delirium 06:52, May 22, 2004 (UTC)
We (Wikipedia) seem to use the terms SW Asia and West Asia synonymously; West Asia redirects to Southwest Asia. India was never a part of SW Asia/West Asia nor of Middle East. The Indian government and the Indian media (upon instructions) refer to the Middle East as West Asia. I've rewritten the paragraph a bit to address the above issue. Ambarish | Talk12:37, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Middle East" isn't just "Eurocentric" it's meaning varies even within Europe depending on the position of the reader: in continental Europe people would not consider Israel to be middle eastern; I wonder if they do so in Brittain. ("Middle East" might be "America-centric".) In FranceIsrael, Syria et c. is called near east and the middle east starts east of Syria. However, in Germany (which is east of France) Saudi Arabia and Iraq are considered near east too and India is middle eastern.
The problem with the term is, that its semantics depend on the position; it is not just ambiguous but arbitrary. Since the position of the readers/writers vary and english is spoken in many different geographical regions, we should be careful when using relative positions! --Hokanomono 09:05, 2004 Jun 2 (UTC)
Armenia, Georgia and - to lesser degree - Azerbaijan are European countries and not Asian countries. Refdoc 15:42, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Refdoc: No, they're indeed Asian. They'e not European, not historically, not culturally, not geographically, not linguistically. I really wish this ridiculous trend of expanding who is European (as it is somehow considered a superior thing to be...) would stop. Some Turks and Persians also claim the same nonsense. This is grounded in recent, 20th century politics, not the much older historical realities. Caucasus (even way north of Georgia) had always been a part of Asia's history and culture. It is only recent turn of events, the Russian expansion and redrawing of maps, started this mess and confusion. In short: all of Caucasus region is in Asia. West Asia, to be precise. --Siraaj 03:20, 2009 Nov 29 (UTC)
Siraaj: Armenia and Georgia are most definitely culturally European. Linguistically, Armenian is an Indo-European tongue (I know that the Indo-Iranian branch is present in Indo-European, but still Armenian is closest to Greek and Albanian), while Georgian is a Caucasian language. Both countries' populations are predominately Orthodox Christians and they view themselves as being part of Europe. The EU's Eastern Partnership would not see to them being a part of the organization if they were not seen as European. The EU's official stance on the matter is that the countries of the Caucasus are European. I believe it is quite harsh to say that they are in no way European. Azerbaijan on the other hand, is an entirely different matter... Sarkisov (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sarkisov: Like I said, those are modern political issues you're talking about, not the reality of our (I am Caucasian) history. Armenian language is indeed Indo-European, but it is closest to Persian, not Greek or Albanian. Indo-European languages are spoken in (some parts of) Caucasus, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. Are they all "European" because of it? There's nothing "European" about cultures in Caucasus - 150 years of interaction with Russia has left its marks, but it did not erase our history and culture. As for Christianity, Anatolia too has been Orthodox Christian before Turks, but it did not change geography of being in Asia. Assyrians and Ethiopians too were Christian even before most of Europe, but it does not change their geography or ethnicity. All people in Caucasus, from Adyghea to Azerbaijan share a lot of culture and history, why is it that you think that Azerbaijan "is an entirely different matter"? Because of Islam? Then what about Balkans, are we to consider Balkans not European because there're Muslims there? Please understand the difference between history/culture and politics. Uzbekistan also wouldn't mind joining the EU, as it would have a profound effect on the economy, but would that change their history/culture/geography? One final note: it is quite offensive to see the suggestion of not being "European", labeled as "harsh", as that would imply a negative thing. Europe has its own culture, history and geography; We in Caucasus have our own, and it is most deeply tied to Asia. There's nothing negative or positive about belonging to either, its just facts/reality. -- Siraaj 06:50, 2009 Dec 26 (UTC)
my 2 cents
Personally, I think there should be separate articles for West Asia and Southwest Asia. Gringo300 29 June 2005 05:12 (UTC)
What's the point of this page?
Just discovered and reverted vandalism after chasing a rogue IP from another vandalised page, but having done so, I can't help but think- What's the point of this page anyway? I'm a professional geographer, and I've never heard this term used. Is it worth it's own (stub) page? Let me know if I'm being too Anglo centric and this term is used elsewhere in the world! Coyote-3710:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
let's merge it with Middle East. It's not so much 'confused' with that term (as the intro states), it is rather a term that sees practically no use because of the nearly synonym and much more current 'Near/Middle East'. dab(ᛏ)17:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't merge (at least for the time being). This page is linked to by Template:Regions of the world because Western Asia is a UN defined region. That template is itself in the process of undergoing revision but will probably need a page to link to with that term. Thanks Andeggs10:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those latter two purposes are completely at odds with each other, though. "Southwest Asia" seems to be used to mean much the same as "Middle East", and be to be just about as variably/vaguely defined -- even to the point of including European Turkey and the bulk ofEgypt, which to the naked eye would seem to be in entirely different continents. "Western Asia" seems to have an actual particular definition, used by the UN for assorted statistical information. So if the pages exists for those purposes, it should be moved (back) to that name, and be refactored accordingly, so as to reduce the amount of confusion experience by anyone referred here expecting a coherent definition of that region. Alai01:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Southwest Asia should be separate from the Middle East as Egypt is in the middle east, but not in southwest asia --Astrokey4412:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Coyote said "I'm a professional geographer, and I've never heard this term used. Is it worth it's own (stub) page? Let me know if I'm being too Anglo centric and this term is used elsewhere in the world! Coyote-3710:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm surprised that you've never heard of the term west asia or southwest asia!!! the UN refers to this region and rightly so as West Asia.........the middle east peace process not too long ago was called West Asia peace process. Most West Asian countries including Israel are regular participants in Asian Games...Turkey refers itself as a country spread across two continents i.e Asia and Europe.....there is no continent named the middle east. It is a Euro/anglo centric term and defines a region on either side of two continents, just an easy way to group people according to ethnicity/religion etc. User: guest 01:46, 11 Dec, 2007 {UTC}[reply]
"It is a Euro/anglo centric term and defines a region on either side of two continents, just an easy way to group people according to ethnicity/religion etc"
Actually it was used by Alfred Mahan to describe the area between the Ottoman Empire and India in terms of security for the British Empire in 1902. After the Ottoman Empire dissolved the term incorporated much of their area. Read Adelson's "London and the Invention of the Middle East."
Dhummel (talk) 05:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I came to this page from another and decided, for a number of reasons, to edit it. But I'm still left wondering why the article states that the greater portion of the traditional Middle/Near East has been replaced by the term Western Asia when it makes much more sense to call it Southwestern Asia. The text doesn't really help me understand the logic behind where one term ends and the other begins.
I lack the expertise (and the time) to make necessary contributions. I fear a couple of weasel words/phrases may have made it into my edits as a result, but I hope the added "citation(s) needed" will obviate these weaknesses and encourage their swift and authoritative replacement. Scrawlspacer (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest that issues of borders, etc. be resolved by quoting noteworthy or respected sources that actually use this language. (The article would also need to distinguish between "Southwest" "West" and "Western" Asia, which are all used differently in my experience.)Reference to the UN is a good start, but what about the wire services?-- Dawud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.60.55.9 (talk) 00:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a quick survey of Google News hits, plus the countries most represented in the top 10 hits of each.
I am just wondering, if transcontinentalcountries in the European section have a clear not that says that they might partially belong to asia according to different definition, then why does not the western asian section say anythign about those countries being european ? you can not just include them without stating anythign about it. if you rely on the UN definition then tell us why you rely on it.
WHO gave these people the right to use the UN model as a standard
I think either all transcontinental countries should be included, or they should be all excluded. First of all we dont even know where the borders go as they are not official, thats why we dont even know which countries are transcontinental, which are completely european or not european at all. I understand that many people rely too much on the UN classification which is absolutely not correct. even though the UN has the power to recognize the borders of a sovereign state (in case of consensus among the majority of the member states) they have nothing to do with defining borders between the continents or inside a continent.WHat these borders are, is that they were created as an administrative entitiess for THE UN, and for the Functioning of the UN and thats exactly according to what they have different parts in the organization that have to "take care" of particular regions. There are many other organization who have devided continents or some regions with their own version of borders which does not mean that they are official, its purely for their organizational functioning. if the UN will call the council session where majority of the countries in the world/continent will agree on where borders go, in case of consencus(just like on this FORUM) they can make the borders official. Until then, if noone can provide any sources that says that the UN had a session where countries VOTED / AGREED on this issue, until there is a charter that says that the borders are official and etc.these borders do not set a standard for anyone in the world. they are purely for the UN in order to implement their administrative functions.(just like the US army has different commands that have to take care of particular region in the world.)
in this map all of those "transcontinental" countries are in the European command (which does not necesarily mean that they are european, though, because these are just the administrative entitys, for the functioning of the certain organization and etc. and nothing else)
thats what I was saying since the beginning of times. they are making TOO much emphasis on the UN definition which is nothing but an administrative division of the UN offices of control. the UN does not have any consensus reached over that issue and they will probably never have as it not their field of expretise. (briefly, its none of their business)--Polscience (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transcontinental states
Im just wondering why transcontinental states are treated like they are entirely in western asia while the European section says that they are not. and also the other thing is why is the UN model used as a standard, those borders are not official and they are just for the UN, for statistical and their administrative functioning.please provide sources that state that those borders are official or change the article and stop preferring the UN version over others, there are many not less respectable organizations (Council of Europe, BBC, etc)that classify those countries as european.
Image over text.
The world map is on top of a few words "and have sociopolitical ties to the latter. Turkey is located in Europe and in Asia. The Asian part of the Arab world (including Arabia proper) is called the Mashreq in Arabic."
Sorry. Not so black and white. Egyptians at points during the 20th century viewed themselves even as part of Europe, but mostly as part of the Middle East Arab community. Read Balfour-Paul's "The End of Empire in the Middle East."Dhummel (talk) 05:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this region is Southwest Asia, then shouldnt there be a West Asia? more so since there is a South Asia and East Asia and a North Asia I suggest creating a sperate West Asian region article with Cyprus, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Georgia and Armenia in it, possibly Southern Russian republics of Chechenya, Daghestan and Ingushetia too.203.81.236.65 (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
THEunique and an anon ip (whom I believe is THEunique) have been adding Pakistan to Southwest Asia without making any references that justify said changes. To anyone who sees these edits, please revert them (unless some actual references are made) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many sources say that Pakistan and Afghanistan lie on Central Asia and 1/2 of pakistan lies on Southwest asia. I hope I am making sense as that is what I have read —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.65.226 (talk) 18:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Give an academic source citing it as a Southwest Asia. Frankly, I have never seen one calling Pakistan anything other than South Asia. Reference a source. South Asia consists of more than just the Indian Subcontinent. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have seen Pakistan being called Middle Eastern aswell as south asia. Its a country which lies on central asia aswell. The reason why Pakistan should be added I believe is because the western half of Pakistan lies on Western Asia while the other half lies on South asia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.65.226 (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What you are doing is known as original research, something Wikipedia does not support. Read WP:OR. If you think Pakistan or any part of Pakistan is in Southwest Asia, you must cite a source, not just say you have seen people say that. Until you provide an academic sources that clearly states your claim, your edits will be reverted as vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegreyanomaly (talk • contribs) 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Pakistan does lie on Southwest Asia because geographically we are looking at the country through the areas and in that case it lies on the Persian Plateau. Well at least the western 50% of it when you look at maps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugamuto (talk • contribs) 20:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Historically and geographically, Iran is part of Western Asia and this has been confirmed with many proofs and governments. If you look at any old map or geographic book it shows Iran has located in western Asia. This is a new game playing with some Arabic countries support to redraw the boundaries an push Iran and Afghanistan in southern Asia region. What a shame for UN which buy this cheap motives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SorenShadow (talk • contribs) 19:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems clear that the Middle East covers bits of Eastern Europe, Western Asia, and Northern Africa.
How many of these other articles need to be separate articles? Do we need one? If so, which? If more than one, why? There is some scant evidence (a map) that the UN plans to use "West Asia" on its maps at least. Should "Soutwest Asia" be moved to "West Asia", and thisthe others turned into a redirect to that article?sinneed (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"(Partially in Europe)"
1st - why not simply fact-flag it and move on?
2nd - why not simply replace the text with something that indicates it is disputed?
3rd - whatever the goal, please stop fighting over it, and start talking
I think West Asia would be better even if solely because it's the counterpart of East Asia in terms of latitude as opposed to Southeast Asia. Or maybe there should be two separate articles? -- Mttll (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing the name of this article from "Southwest Asia" to "West Asia"
In my personal opinion, the region is more like the western counterpart of what's known as "East Asia" (Japan) rather than "Southeast Asia" (Malaysia) in terms of latitude.
I'm aware that my personal opinion doesn't matter, thus I will use United Nations subregions of world as argument. -- Mttll (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just made the attempt, but failed. It says there is an article called West Asia, but when I type it, I am referred to this article. --Mttll (talk) 14:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where/what exactly is (South)west(ern) Asia?
"Southwest Asia" doesn't seem to be very well defined here, if at all.
No maps are shown or explicit definitions given, other than "Southwest Asia or Southwestern Asia is the southwestern portion of Asia", which is tautological to the point of uselessness.
It is apparently "roughly analogous to" and partially overlapping (i.e. not the same as) the "Middle East"/"West Asia", but that doesn't indicate what its actual borders are or how it is defined. (Further more, while this article claims that the UN uses "W Asia" to mean the "Middle East", the United_Nations_geoscheme article shows a "West Asia" that is much smaller than the "Middle East" shown in the Middle East article).
There then follows a statement saying that several countries are considered by the UN to be in West Asia (but this article is about SW Asia) but have sociopolitical ties to both (followed by a [citation needed] tag, which I'm not sure if is meant to apply to the UN classification or the sociopolitical ties statement).
The links between this and related articles also seem confused:
I came here from the Azerbaijan page, which is described as being at the "crossroads of Western Asia and Eastern Europe", but "Western Asia" is linked directly to this page.
The "See also" section of this article (Southwest Asia) has a link to West Asia, which just redirects back to here.
Someone who knows a lot more about the subject than I do needs to go over this and related pages and decide whether the UN's "West Asia" is an important enough entity to have its own article (or just an administrative concept deserving a line or two on the georegions/subregions pages), and whether or not "Southwest Asia" is distinct enough from both the UN's "West Asia" and the colloquial "Middle East" to deserve its own article or just a mention under the other two, and if it is distinct entity, how it is actually defined and what its boundaries are.
You're right. I support moving it to West Asia in line with the UN's geographic name, and making improvements from there, what do you think? Izzedine (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a geographer or any sort of expert on this region, so I'm not sure I'm the best person to advise on what should be done. That said, I'm not sure the UN name would be most appropriate. They look to me like rather arbitrary divisions, intended (according to their article) for statistical purposes, and don't necessarily bear much relation to any real physical, cultural or environmental entities. The most glaring example whould be "Eastern Europe", which includes all of Russia, including Siberia and the Russian Far East. As such, unless this article is specifically about "The UN georegion called 'Western Asia'", then IMO some other name should be used. Wardog (talk) 10:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC) (PS: sorry for the delay in responding).[reply]
92.3.126.124 and "South central Asia" and Pakistan and Afghanistan
This is a made-up region by the aforementioned IP. This region does not exist and is not sourced. The addition of Pakistan and Afghanistan to Southwest Asia are completely uncited and accurated. Please revert these edits if you see them. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Afghanistan and "UN subregion of Central Asia"
The definition of continental regions and sub-regions in use by the United Nations for statistical purposes.
User:Scythian77 keeps reverting the phrase "UN subregion of Southern Asia" to "UN subregion of Central Asia". This edit is incorrect as the UN subregion of Central Asia includes: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan per [31]. It does NOT include Afghanistan. Yes I know Afghanistan can be considered part of Central Asia, and as a result the intro to "Countries in West Asia" clearly indicates
The fact of the matter is that Scythian's edit is fundamentally incorrect as the UN subregion of Central Asia does not include Afghanistan. That fact is reillustrated here on this map Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the section
I tried to do away with the use of UN subregions (outside of Western Asia) to simplify the page. Also, it might be better if we can convert the long windy list into prose. The list is very long and could be better as a paragraph or two explaining the situation. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that you should not move articles by copy-and-paste methods because this disrupts the edit history and affects the copyright status of the article. To make a proper move, you must request a move at the appropriate talk page using {{subst:move|NewName}} together with the reason for the name change. Green Giant (talk) 04:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried the regular move process but it wouldn't work due to the destination title already existing, so a copy and paste was the only way to move it. The move is based on the UN definition and a WikiProject with the name and had support already, nothing really controversial. Appreciate your advice though. Izzedine (talk) 08:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: I am not talking about the regular move process. I am talking about requesting a move from admins. Simple as that. I actually support your move but you have to do it the right way otherwise you are damaging Wikipedia's credibility. On the vurrent history of Western Asia, the impression is that Izzedine is the only editor who has contributed material, which is a false impression because literally dozens of editors have contributed. Green Giant (talk) 08:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Palestine
Palestine's entry should not be treated as every other country. Its sovereignty is not clear and is disputed. As is done elsewhere in many places in Wikipedia, the name should be italicized and a clear note about disputed sovereignty included. (Taivo (talk) 22:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Western Asia Picture
Iran is a not part of Western Asia. She is part of Southern Asia*. The Picture includes Iran as she is Western Asian. The history of picture depicts someone altered the original. A new picture is needed.
Historically and geographically, Iran is part of Western Asia and this has been confirmed with many proofs and governments. If you look at any old map or geographic book it shows Iran has located in western Asia. This is a new game playing with some Arabic countries support to redraw the boundaries an push Iran and Afghanistan in southern Asia region. What a shame for UN which buy this cheap motives.
The Map
I like the subregion map with the different regions labelled. It is a nice guide that readers can use to get to another place if they landed in the wrong one. Some of the other regions have a smaller scale map in place of or in addition to the regions map. But the problem with the map that only shows Western Asia is that it is a large-scale map showing all of Asia instead of a small-scale map that only shows Western Asia (see Southeast Asia or Central Asia for examples of an appropriate small-scale map that focuses only on that region. (Taivo (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I also prefer that map. But, perhaps there's a happy medium -- maybe a map is warranted that highlights Western Asia, but renders the rest of Asia in a darker grey? Bosonic dressing (talk) 13:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the present "guide map" (the one that shows all the regions) should be supplemented (or replaced), then the new map should focus entirely on Western Asia. Graying out the surrounding region isn't entirely necessary I don't think because there are advantages to not getting too specific about the boundaries of the region. Look at the physical maps at Central Asia and Southeast Asia. They do a very good job of focusing attention on the region without getting into a squabble over where the boundaries are drawn. After all, the boundaries aren't as important as what is inside the boundaries. (Taivo (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Well, a map should exhibit the region and constituents in relation to adjacent regions/territories. As it is for Western Asia, I believe there is utility in showing the rest of Asia, regardless of whether it is greyed or if the various regions of Asia are also shown. I would advocate for similar treatments at the other regional articles, but am flexible. Bosonic dressing (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A map that shows too much of the surrounding world and the region in question too small is not as useful as a map that shows the region larger. The point of the map is to either be a guide for the reader or to show information. For example, at Southeast Asia they show both the regions map (small to help people understand the relationships) AND a physical map to show more detail about Southeast Asia. The map that just has Western Asia in blue is less useful than a mall map with an arrow that says "you are here". At least the mall map shows that if you don't want to be where you are what you can get to from "here". For example, I imagine that people looking for the regional coverage of Iran will often end up here (if they try going to "Middle East", for example). If they clearly see that Iran isn't here, they're going to want to know where Iran is. Using the regions map will get them to Iran faster and make their Wikipedia experience much more pleasant and enlightening. (Taivo (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
No general argument. But, one point of clarification: at Southeast Asia, note that a world map highlighting the region is also exhibited. It'd be great to have our cake and eat it too without having a glut of them. Bosonic dressing (talk) 00:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I actually think there should be two maps here--one physio-political map of the region in detail, and this guide map for those who wanted Iran or Afghanistan and typed in "Middle East". (Taivo (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
The map is totally wrong. Almost all books and organizations consider Iran as a part of west Asia (not South Asia). This page cites UN for the inclusion of Iran in South Asia, but even the UN map doesn't back this claim (see UN's map for South Asia, from the same source which is cited by the current version of the page). Alefbe (talk) 06:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that this page is totally based on [35]. I don't see any reason to solely rely on that odd categorization which is quite different from the common definitions of World regions (and even UN doesn't use that categorization elsewhere). Alefbe (talk) 06:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Iran or not to Iran
The list of flags before the table is clearly labelled as the UN's list of countries. This does not include Iran. The author of this article intended it to be about the UN's definition of Western Asia, and, as such, should not include Iran. If that intention has changed, then the article's lead paragraphs need to be revised and rewritten. Stop inserting Iran into the "UN list" because it does not belong there. (Taivo (talk) 06:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Occupation Irrelevant in Government Column
(I'm keeping this separate from the Request for Comment below). There is a fundamental misunderstanding here. The table in the article lists "Government". Government refers to the system in which the country is governed. The word "occupied" is irrelevant in that column since Iraq is at the present time completely self-governing--the U.S. forces in that country do not participate in the government of the country (they did right after the invasion, but do not anymore). That eliminates the use of the word "occupied" in the government column. There are other countries where there are large numbers of foreign troops in that country (Northern Cyprus, for example), but unless the foreign power is governing the country, then "occupied" is irrelevant to the discussion. If you are going to list Iraq as "occupied" then you better list Palestine as something besides a "presidential republic" since Israel exerts as much control on Palestinian affairs as the U.S. exerts in Iraqi affairs. Adding "occupied" to the government column is completely POV and does not reflect the actual governmental situation in Iraq. (Taivo (talk) 05:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
For those commenting: Please note that the question is now more precise that what was displayed on the Request for Comment pages. (Taivo (talk) 05:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
"Iraq is sovereign", 28 June 2004.
No. The term 'occupation' when referring to a system of government has a precise meaning in international law. From the date the Iraqi government ceased to function, 9 April 2003, until 28 June 2004, Iraq was under occupation, but it has not been since 28 June 2004. That does not mean that the presence of many troops from other countries in Iraq since that time has not had a major effect on Iraqi politics, but that is not a matter suited to explaining in a brief entry in a table. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Sam Blacketer. Not only has a precise meaning but occupying powers have precise obligations that are no longer in place. --Ecemaml (talk) 14:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that at this stage I'm inclined to agree that the US positiion in Iraq could not appropriately be called an 'occupation.' However, arriving at that conclusion begs the following question: If it's not an occupation, what, in fact, is it?--Praxis1966 (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
I think the issue turns on what reliable sources say. If they characterize Iraq as occupied, then the status should be listed as occupied, however if they say the occupation has ended then the status will be different (Praxis poses a valid question as to what the status then is). I agree that there exist good definitions on when a territory is considered to be occupied, but wiki editors shouldn't apply the definitions themselves but rely on sources that apply them. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Immediately after the war, it was certainly occupied. However, Iraq now has a sovereign government. US forces are more active in Iraq today than in Germany, but the position today is reducing to that of Germany after 1950. when there was a sovereign government, with allied forces stationed in its territory. It was not occupied, unless you believe Soviet propanda of the period. As I read it now, the note (24) does not say it is now "occupied", but to satsify objectors, it might be possible to add, "though United States forces still remain in Iraq". Peterkingiron (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No- I agree with Praxis1966. No one would say that South Korea is occupied, even though US troops remained in large numbers following the Korean War. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With one major difference. The U.S did not invade South Korea and dispose of the government, installing it's own leadership for at least the interim period. That is why there must be some note of this. The U.S still conducts military operations in Iraq, after all, and still holds a massive force there in a very different manor from what exists in South Korea. The Scythian17:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus is that Iraq is not currently "occupied" in the technical sense. I added in the footnote that there are still US and allied forces in the country. But the government of Iraq is sovereign and self-governing. Therefore, "occupied" is not a correct description. (Taivo (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Why Southwest Asia title still in airline articles
An un-official editor Jaspel, is objecting to Western Asia being used in the destinations lists of airline articles, he says that its been decided to continue listing the region as Southwest Asia in there, why is this the case? should'nt all articles be listed according to what their actual title name is in wikipedia?
For example wikipedia lists Myanmar as Burma, everytime anyone changes name to Myanmar in airline destination lists this un-official editor reverts it with comments like "IP vandal" or "We list it as Burma here" though everyone except those associated with Britain call it Myanmar (compare other news channels to BBC news and see what name they use) but I can understand that since the article name in wikipedia is Burma it should be listed like so.
Similarly China article name is People's Repuiblic of China and China in wikipedia, but for country its always been abbreviated to People's Republic of China|China in airline lists which wikified shows China but righfully leads to People's Republic of China article when clicked on, in this case the said editor is not even accepting the wikified name as it would appear China while leading to the PRC article and not teh China article, he keeps posting message PRC NAME MUST BE WRITTEN IN FULL, why is the wiki feature available to help abbreviate longer names while still leading to the article as listed title wise in wikipedia?
Western Asia being listed as Southwest Asia in airline related articles and not under the articles proper wikipedia name should be unacceptable to editors, then why does this editor who's not even officially a wikipedia person enforcing his rule? why does he keep reverting edits and practices double standards by wanting full name for China as per wikipedia country name title of the article, while not allowing the same for Western Asia? and what makes airline article listing standards different, are they not part of mainline wikipedia.119.155.15.137 (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I commented Sinai out, not because I don't think it is part of the region, but because no source was given. I did not remove the material, so it should be easy to just add a source and remove the commenting out.
--Muhandes (talk) 06:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed some comments singling out Israel from the table footnotes. I'm sure I don't need to remind anyone that there are many disputed territories in the area. A non-conclusive list: Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia, Northern Cyprus etc. I suggest we keep to the verifiable facts and not pull the dispute into every single article dealing with the area. --Muhandes (talk) 06:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point that there are other territorial disputes in the region, but the status of Israeli-occupied territories, Palestinian territories and Jerusalem is apples and oranges compared to these. Unlike Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia and Northern Cyprus, there is widespread legal recognition of the Palestinian territories, non-recognition of Israeli-occupied territories, and ambiguous positions on Jerusalem. It shouldn't be interpreted as singling-out Israel to neutrally record the facts regarding these territories. There is simply a much higher noteworthiness to this territorial dispute than the others of the region. EmirKaraman (talk) 07:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. There is little neutrality in mentioning one dispute over another, no matter the recognition (which of course, is something that can be argued upon as well). But furthermore, this is a strict and simple table. Information is taken from a reliable source - the CIA factbook (I hope, I didn't check the data). Lets keep it this way, rather than drag the dispute where it does not belong. --Muhandes (talk) 08:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think an argument for including the lesser territorial disputes would be more convincing than one for excluding this one due to their absence. What are the legal parallels between the status of the Palestinian territories or the Israeli-occupied territories and the other disputed territories in the region? Nagorno-Karabakh is universally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, Northern Cyprus is recognized only by Turkey, and Abkhazia and South Ossetia are recognized as independent only by four states in the world. EmirKaraman (talk) 08:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I think you are missing the point. The purpose of this article is to inform an interested reader of what the Western Asia region consists of. This is not served by mentioning every single dispute in the region. If you really must, maybe make a single footnote to List of states with limited recognition, though this might be controversial too - for example, why not mention Iraqi Kurdistan? There is no end to it, and this is not what this article is about. --Muhandes (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is no merit in mentioning minor territorial disputes, however the legal status of territories in the Israel-Palestine dispute is wholly different from all of the other disputes. No comparisons can be drawn. Iraqi Kurdistan is an autonomous region of Iraq, comparable to Andalusia in Spain. No dispute of status exists there. The legal status of the Palestinian territories, the Israeli-occupied territories, and Jerusalem is completely different to other territorial disputes in the region. I don't see any reason to argue that footnotes on the status of these "single-out" Israel. It just flies in the face of the facts. If there were any legal parallels with other disputes I would be on your side of the argument, but there just isn't any in this case. EmirKaraman (talk) 09:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You did not address my main point, so I'll repeat it. The purpose of this article is to inform an interested reader of what the Western Asia region consists of. The table is a simple, verifiable, table of facts. None of them need this dispute or any other dispute dragged into them. This is not helping the reader in any way. If you must add a dispute, there is no neutral way to draw the line on what disputes to mention and what not to mention. --Muhandes (talk) 12:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's nice of you to forget the second half of the argument, but yes, in essence I claim that in this context it is irrelevant. The second half was that even if one chose to add the footnotes, it would be difficult to do in a neutral way. --Muhandes (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maps
Currently, there are three maps on this page, two of which include Iran in the region and 1 which does not. The one which does not is the UN regions map. Isn't the UN region scheme the main reason for this page? It being the most prominent user of the term and all. No reason is given for the variance of the maps. Having alternative views illustrated is one thing, but such illustrations should be limited to a special section discussing the definition and not be the main illustrations. --Khajidha (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article puts undue weight on the UN statistics department by placing Georgia as Western Asian without any justification or explanation. There are countless sources that say the contrary:[19]. The UN itself says that the classification is for statistical "convenience" only. [20] --Hendrikestonian (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect EmirKaraman, you were just provided with nearly two dozen references. If that does not constitute "common definition", what does? You do not own this article and ignoring so many sources is clearly against wikipedia standards. I will restore the NPOV tag--Polgraf (talk) 15:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dumping several hand-picked references here doesn't mean it is the common definition. I could go and collect an equal if not greater number of references which state the opposite. The common definition is that the South Caucasus is in West Asia, and the North Caucasus is in East Europe. Georgia is in the South Caucasus. You can open the question to the community and ask them what the common definition is. Yes, Georgia is included in some European organizations, but that doesn't mean that it isn't located in Asia. Cyprus and Turkey are also included in many European organizations, but are geographically in Asia, apart from East Thrace. EmirKaraman (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are not hand picked. In case you have missed, you were also provided with the Asia placement sources which are not of such great number. Please go ahead and collect sources to prove the contrary but be advised that it takes more than isolated websites and blogs to overweight such multitude of world organizations links to which have been provided.--Polgraf (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources saying one thing = hand-picked. If you think Georgia is not in Asia, open the question to the community and find out what the general consensus is. EmirKaraman (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The general consensus is not reached based on peoples opinions. It is reached on the basis of concrete empirical evidence. You are provided with an abundance of evidence and you are going to have to swallow it. The present consensus is based solely on the UN definition and a handful of other sources. Unless you explain why the UN statistics department and Britannica weight more than 20 major organizations combined, you have no case. --Hendrikestonian (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I locate references on the matter, I propose to open this question to the community for a period of one week, to see what the general consensus is. Wikipedia works by consensus, so we will find out what the consensus is on this matter. EmirKaraman (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RfC: Is Georgia's presence in this article correct?
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
Should Georgia (in the South Caucasus) be completely removed from this article just because it is included in some European organizations? EmirKaraman (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
^[30]: "The assignment of countries or areas to specific groupings is for statistical convenience and does not imply any assumption regarding political or other affiliation of countries or territories."
.svg){kind=small}
