Talk:Fertile Crescent/Archive 1

Arabic name.
Dear colleagues, why we cite arabic name in the head paragraph? Did James Henry Breasted derive this term from Arabic one? Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 12:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the Arabic translation isn't significant and should not be included in the article. The translation has no relation to the origin of Breasted's term and provides no benefit to the article. Readers interested in the Arabic language version should use the interwiki links to view the Arabic Wikipedia. --NormanEinstein 12:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree! 195.182.156.71 19:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ecology
I have added a paragraph about biodiversity and ecology, which does much to explain some of the importance of the Fertile Crescent.

Regards John D. Croft 03:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

History of term
OK, it's clear that Breasted coined it, and was using it by 1916. But can anyone tell me when (and where) he first used the term? --Iustinus (talk) 06:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Remove Egypt
Is there an objection to removing Egypt from this description? As mentioned above this was not part of Breasted's definition and is not the way this is commonly defined. It is perhaps appropriate to mention that some people define it this way but this should not be considered the "standard" definition.

--Mcorazao (talk) 05:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Certainly the fact that Breasted did not include Egypt when he coined the term is an argument to not include it in the article, at any rate the article should not unequivocally list Egypt, but if some uses that include Egypt can be cited, then perhaps it should be noted in the article that Egypt is sometimes included; though not always. Brando130 (talk) 18:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

comment
There is a catastrophic failure in the wording at the start of this article. Unnatural fertility? What about it is even remotely unnatural. Who ever wrote that needs to be shot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.84.25 (talk) 07:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The Geography section is a mess
It seems like someone just wrote some stuff that sounded plausible to themselves. The "Many scientists believe ...extinct" part is just terrible. I've never read anything remotely suggesting that, and simply referring to "many scientists" is vague and very bad form. It is also factually incorrect. Just visiting the list of extinct plants, there are very few ones that went extinct around 10,000 years ago, the time concerned. The Holocene extinction event was primarily of big mammals, not crop plants. And its primary cause was human hunting, not climate change, a mistake that the article makes again in the very next paragraph. The section seriously needs some reworking. Punkrockrunner (talk) 03:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)punkrockrunner

Fertile Crescent Plan

 * As you know, there are many plans for Fertile Crescent: American invasion of Iraq, etc. This is an article about a region and its people, not everybody's plans.--Raayen (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There are many panNationalistic ideas and proposals for unions. Should every country or region's article have a section for it?! Wikipedia would be a mess full of panNational ambitions.--Raayen (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

merge?
Cradle of civilization merge. should be in The Ancient Near East Portal? I can read, but I am bad at editing. Romanfall (talk) 04:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)