Talk:Middle East/Archive 1

Untitled
See also my comments about shifts of meaning, on the Talk:Seljuk Turks page. PML.

I don't want to go into an edit war here, but I feel the discussion of the possible future of the West Bank and Gaza as an independent state does not belong here.

How about if we just add the following at the end of the country list:

... and the disputed territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Readers can then follow these links to find discussions of their political status and possible future.

uriber 21:19 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Egypt is sometimes recognized as part of North Africa as opposed to the Middle East. WhisperToMe 05:27, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * There is no reason at all why Egypt can't be both in North Africa and in the Middle East. Indeed, most people would say that. --Zero 05:33, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Egypt is in both North Africa and the Middle East, just as Cyprus is in both the Mediterranean Sea and Europe. Jamesday 05:41, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think some people would consider all of North Africa as far as Morocco as the Middle East. It's more of an outsider mindset rather than a really physically geographic location. RickK | Talk 05:38, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

But we need a more stable geographical definition somewhere in this article. Not "ALL" people include Egypt as the Mideast. The Emirates airline routemap groups Egypt with Africa WhisperToMe 16:12, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * It's not primarily a geographic definition. It's primarily a political, religious and cultural definition. For a geographic term, creating Southwest Asia was a good move. Jamesday 05:41, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I put back Egypt. It is one of the countries almost always included. Your example is insufficient for the reason stated above (the fact that Egypt is in Africa has no bearing on whether it is in the Middle East). Can you find a single dictionary or encyclopedia or geography book that excludes Egypt from the Middle East? Here are some that include it: Merriam-Webster dictionary, American Heritage dictionary, Oxford English Dictionary, Wordnet, Encyclopedia Britannica, World Book Encyclopedia, Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia. Some other sources that regard Egypt as in the Middle East: MENIC, Library of Congress. --Zero 23:15, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but lets try to use a geograpical term. If Southwest Asia is going to redirect here, lets only have Asian countries in the "almost always" list, and then put Egypt in for "often" and mention that it IS in North Africa. Encarta mentions the Middle East as in Southwest Asia and Northeastern Africa, so maybe we should segregate the "always" list we have into countries in Asia and countries in Africa. http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761579298/Middle_East.html - So lets do it like how they do it. WhisperToMe 23:51, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That, and in Wikipedia, the "Middle East" is listed as a region of Asia. If Egypt is included without mentioning which continent it is on, that would make the region extend beyond Asia. Oh, and the fact that it is in Africa sometimes does have a bearing on whether or not it is included in the Middle East, esp. when North Africa is classified as a separate region. WhisperToMe 00:05, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and sometimes Egypt is divided into either being in the Middle East or North Africa - the Sinai Peninsula is in Asia. WhisperToMe 00:24, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Whisper, why don't you give up on this pointless argument, on which no-one agrees with you, and go and do something useful? Adam 03:02, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is a quite valid argument. If "Southwest Asia" redirects here, then "Southwest Asia" is to be defined in the Middle East article, and that is by segregating the "usually" countries by continent. WhisperToMe 04:18, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It may or may or not be a "valid" argument, but it is a highly pedantic one, and not one you are going to win. So stop wasting your time and other people's. Adam 04:39, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Then why not make "Southwest Asia" a separate article if you insist on not letting it being defined in the "Middle East" article? (BTW: I just did that. See: Southwest Asia) WhisperToMe 04:52, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

-- Listen, Adam, "Middle East" may be a recognizeable term, but it is a VERY poor geographical term. It is extremely ambigous, and can extend very far. Also, geographers prefer not to use the term "Middle East" and go along "Southwest Asia" instead, as not only is it much more easily defineable, but while Turks and Cypriots assert that they are Europeans, and not part of the Middle East, geographically, Turkey and Cyprus are part of Europe.

Yes, Middle East is a good socio-political term, but it is a poor geographical term. WhisperToMe 05:11, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In the Eurocentrism article/section, it says that .... well just read it. But I think the term could also mean that "Southwest Asia" is in the Middle of the East or eastern continent of Africa-Eurasia. In other words, it's at the crossroads of three continents, Asia, Africa and Europe. I know the term didn't come from this, but it's just another interpretation. 24.189.3.230 03:40, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

European use of the Term
Short note: Other (continental European) languages I now use Near East (Naher Osten, Bliski istok). The introduction therefore is not entirely correct in my view.Jakob Stevo 21:40, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

This is an English language encyclopaedia. The introduction therefore discusses the use of the term in English. Adam 00:33, 20 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the mess, I didn't mean the introduction but the following passage:
 * ...older term "Near East." Before the First World War, "Near East" was used in Europe to refer to the Balkans and the Ottoman Empire, while "Middle East" referred to Persia, Afghanistan and sometimes Central Asia...
 * _That_ hasn't got to do with new or old terms, that is the terminology in used in on the continent up to this date!Jakob Stevo 11:54, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

But not in English. Adam 12:34, 20 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Since english is not the language of continental Europe! Don't say Europe if you are just talking about Brittain. (The article talks about "the term" Near East which might be read as "the concept" rather then "the words".) See also Talk:Southwest Asia. --Hokanomono 10:37, 2004 Jun 2 (UTC) I'm sorry for being too impassioned. I hope my change to the article sufficiently resolves this issue without affronting anybody. --Hokanomono 10:48, 2004 Jun 2 (UTC)

Layout issues
(also known as blankfaze v. 24.189.3.230) Can we please compromise and tell me specifically what you think is wrong with my edit, so we don't have to continuously revert eachother's edits? To Blankfaze. Thanks 24.189.3.230 17:59, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * First of all, the article doesn't need an Introduction header. Secondly, you're not even making an introduction header, I guess coz you don't know how.  Instead you're just placing "Introduction" right before the first sentence.  Secondly, We do not need a bulleted list of the countries.  It makes unnecessary whitespace.  It's fine as it is, so leave it like that.  Your edits are UGLY, UNNECESSARY, and they do not conform to the Manual of Style.  I encourage you to make an actual constructive edit to the article instead of just unnecessarily shifting things around and making the article look crappy and unprofessional.  blankfaze | &bull;&bull; | &bull;&bull; 18:06, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * The article is much neater the way I edited it. It's easy to read, and I have stated clearly the states within the region for instance. Though there maybe me "Style" mistakes or whatever, we can change it. It is not ugly, it is just easier to read. And plus, don't call something unprofessional when you're using the word crappy.
 * No, the article is not much neater. Your version looks substantially worse.  Yes, there are style mistakes.  Yes, we can change it.  It's called me reverting your edits.  Good change.  blankfaze | &bull;&bull; | &bull;&bull; 18:15, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Wow, you're so clever. So smooth. Stop being an ass so we can compromise!
 * Haha. YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND.  There isn't going to be a compromise, because you aren't adding anything constructive to the article!!!  blankfaze | &bull;&bull; | &bull;&bull; 19:20, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh God, Blankfaze, you're being so immature. Are you saying that if I just added a little more info and used my style, you'd leave it the way I have it?
 * No, I'm saying that your style sucks and that you can put all sorts of info but your style will not be used. blankfaze | &bull;&bull; | &bull;&bull; 19:42, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Can I ask why are you an administrator? If you ask me, you're way too immature to have that job. 24.189.3.230 19:46, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm an administrator for a lot of reasons, one of which is because I took the time to read Manual of Style so I know how to format articles!  I'm not being "immature".  I know You are just in favour of edits that make a good article look silly.  End of story.  blankfaze | &bull;&bull; | &bull;&bull; 20:02, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Rightful version v. 24.189.3.230's version


 * The rightful version of the page, that is, how it appeared before 24.189.3.230 came along, and how it appears now:
 * 24.189.3.230's proposed version:

Where should I begin?
 * 24's version for some reason has the word "Introduction" in bold inserted right before the first sentence: "Introduction The Middle East is a geographical and cultural area comprising the lands..." Don't know what that's about.
 * That was obviously a mistake. As I said, anyone can feel free to fix the format. I admit, I'm not an expert on formatting.
 * Instead of the perfectly fine, compact paragraph list of countries in the rightful version, 24 wants an unnecessary bullet-style list, which creates unnecessary white space - hence a longer amount for readers to scroll down to get to other information.
 * The heading in 24's version "Archaic Definitions" is POV. And unnecessary, because it's all covered in the rightful version.
 * As I said, feel free to change the minor things that you see as incorrect or unuseful.
 * I am, however, in favour of keeping 24's sections entitled "Indirect Translations" and as soon as I'm done here, I will add them to the current article.

In summary, 24 has repeatedly instated a version of the article that looks unprofessional and messy. I have thus reverted to earlier, properly-formatted versions. blankfaze | &bull;&bull; | &bull;&bull; 20:45, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The anonymous person's edits were ugly and unnecessary, and Zero was right to protect the page in its pre-ugly version until said anonymous person agrees to desist. In my view also, anonymous persons should become Users if they want to make serious contributions. Adam 14:33, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

List of countries

(moved from above because it doesn't really relate to that block of discussion) blankfaze | &bull;&bull; | &bull;&bull; 13:16, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Ok, let's discuss the points that you think should be improved about the article's layout. Please tell us in detail. I guess you would want a list of countries of the middle east. See my arguments below. --Hokanomono 20:10, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

What has this got to do with anything? Has the anonymous person agreed to stop making unnecessary changes to the format of this article? Adam 05:03, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * No I haven't. This is a discussion to resolve the issue, but it seems as if it's going nowhere so far. 24.189.3.230 15:57, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There are two reasons for that. The first is that your edits are ugly and unnecessary, and I and others will continue to revert them. The second is that you are anonymous, and I for one object to anonymous people making major edits to articles. When you become a registered User, and give a coherent explanation for your actions, this can be discussed. Adam 04:47, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)