Talk:Middle East/Archive 2

For example, Europe is a political construction. Geographically it is only a small part of a asia, but a distinction is made by the states within it.

Are there a majority of states that have a common name for the region? If so, who is part of it? That the majority of states within what we call the middle east also see other states as part of it or not part of it.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

we use different languages so we cant have the same name. but we sure do not believe Pakistan and Afghanistan and India are part of Middle East at all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiften1981 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I know that Turkey is a Eurasian country. You can't put it to Middle East! And İstanbul is in Europe but i saw a picture of The Sultan Ahmed Mosque(Blue Mosque) in the article! But sultan Ahmed Mosque is in Europe next to The Hagia Sophia! Please remove Turkey and all the things about Turkey in the Middle East article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.254.210 (talk) 15:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Shiften1981 (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)wishing to be part of Europe is one thing, and being party of Europe in reality is another. the same goes for being part of the Middle East, being part of ME in reality is one thing and wishing not to be part of it is another. Just to say "please remove Turkey" from the Middle East article will not change the facts. In recent elections Turkey showed it's true nature and where it belongs to. Lets face it all the problems turkey faces like fighting in northern Iraq, where all this is happening? Europe or Middle East?

Turkey is a middle eastern country. It's history and culture is middle eastern, not european. Its ancient history is asian. Today it is a modern country that have several influences from europe and the western world, but Turkey isn't the only country in middle east that has this. Turkey is in Middle East and should be proud of it. Istanbul is a beautiful city where you can experience both europe and middle east.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahatma2008 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

if you think ancient times many eastern european countries were came from east and finland is included so turkey is in eurasia(not european or asian) if you still think we're a middle eastern country completely i suggest you look at our history like avars,huns they've lived in eurasia since 4th century if religion is the reason yeah you're right but we're also secular country do you know any middle eastern country which is secular and not islamic officially? we're a nation with all the races and religions if you mean politically we're a founding member of the council Europe since 1949 i like middle eastern people more than westerners truly btw geographically all greek islands'd be in the middle east if you thought this way istanbul was always a european city hmm who choosed this city as a european capital of culture europeans or middle easterns? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.239.132.219 (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

well if Turkey is in the Middle-East as for looking to the map then Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia are also in the ME? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.233.61.202 (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The main reason Turkey is part of the Middle East is because of its culture. Look at it, its A) a Muslim country, B) look at the Ottoman Empire - who was its head of state? A SULTAN!, look at their art - muslim art...they are part of the MIDDLE EAST...the middle east isnt a geographichal term its a CULTURAL term and therefor part of the ME...Georgia cant be part of the ME because they are a WESTERN/RUSSO cultured country...IE its name GEORGIA after a CHRISTIAN saint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.168.50 (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree with the fact that Turkey is NOT a Middle Eastern country but some fanatical groups/individuals would like to see Turkey as a Middle Eatern country since it suits their hidden agenda. Turkey is European and an Asian but NOT a Middle Eastern country. Accept the fact! Other wise I wonder why you have not included Cyprus as a Middle Eastern country since its location is closer to Syria than Europe! Well, you see have your hidden agenda!

This Statement needs to be changed. "The Garden of Eden from the Book of Genesis is also thought to have been located between the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers, making the Middle East the cradle of civilization, as God created the first man and the first woman in the Garden of Eden"

This sentence needs to be re-worded, it seems to imply that The garden of Eden IS located at said place and IT IS the Cradle of Civilization. Besides the fact that other religions not related to Judiasm/Islam/Christanity are located there. Making the "as God created the first man and woman..." Statement abit loaded as well... 208.248.33.30 20:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100%, so I deleted the passage; otherwise it is biased toward Jewish, Muslim and Christian perspectives. Kemet 17:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I added request for expansion. This is a lot shorter than similar pages! Glen Pepicelli 19:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

If your going to include Afghanistan & Pakistan with the middle east then shouldnt you include India as well? India, Paksitan, Iran, & Afghanistan, have the same blood & same freakin history ARYAN818 08:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC) Aryan818 is a diluttional indian.. whats wrong with indians and the were all the same,, they look closer to some peoples in africa... Pakistani/Afghans look closer to Iranians..

Shiften1981 (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC) since when is Afghanistan and Pakistan a part of Middle East and since when Iranians and Indians are from same blood? Sri Lankans/Bangali's and Indians are surely from the same blood don't include Iranians, never and ever. If anything, Pakistani's are closer to Iranians and half the country lies on our Iranian plateay. Iran has been always a separate country with separate race and culture and some times conquering India. I am sorry for wikipedia giving out wrong information to people. India is never part of Middle East. Is this also written in other Encyclopedias?

"...is the most important source of international terrorism." What does this even mean? It seems to be making a point that most terroists come from here. I don't think this should be here without at least some sort of source to back it up.

Agreed, I removed the sentence. Some people think many things, and a lot more are uninformed. This is much easier to back up than say a statement like the middle east is the major source of terrorism. Saying something is an important source is inherently biased anyways. - Dejitarob 07:24, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't consider Afghanistan or Pakistan to be part of the Middle East. In everyday conversation, when people use the term, they are normally referring to, what the map in this article calls the ""Traditional Middle East". Adding these two countries just brings confusion. Taylor Doyle rox out loud!!!!!!

Actually, if you check the external links below many academics do include Afghanistan and Pakistan are for sure a part of the Middle East b/c these regions share Iranian cultural traits as well as historical and linguistic etc. Overlaping regions are quite common-place throughout the world. Tombseye 18:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, In Pakistan there are many real solid connections to the Middle Easts, beyond mere religion and cursory influences, is Balochistan, particularly the Makran area and its influences into the Sindh provinces which was joined to the middle east as far back as 712 AD by the Syrian Mohammed Bin Qasim. parts of Pakistani Balochistan are definately middle eastern(It was even ruled by the Omanis up until the 50's.) The other parts of the country have much South-Central Asian; so it can be labelled as purely south asian as some people here doing; Pakistan is similar to Turkey in that it represents a transition area. Most academics I've read seem to put it this way and not really the way Tombseye put it, but perhaps mine are a bit outdated. A lot of them are from the 50's 60's and 70's. I dont really equate Iranian influence with Middle Eastern influence as Iranian influence was historically centered in Central Asia/southeast Russia more than in modern Persia/Iran. I think much if not most of the "Iranian" heritage of Pakistan derives from Central Asia then it does from the Middle East. Iranian central Asians were among the most prominent immigrants/invaders into the northwestern part of ancient North west South Asia (i.e. Pakistan and Afghanistan) since antiquity. (Scythians, Parthians, Sogdians, Hepthalites?, Pashtuns). Their heritage is very strong in the genetic and cultural heritage of modern-Pakistan, particularly Punjab. Afghan Historian 03:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

INDIA HAS NO SIMILARITIES WITH THE MIDDLE EASTERN. INDIA IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT. STOP COMPARING INDIANS TO THE MIDDLE EAST FOR CHRIST SAKE! !!!!!!!INDIAS GOT NO PLACE IN THE MID EAST!!!!

I'm responding to the first post:

Middle Easterners are not an ethnic group, so just because Iranians are Aryans and northern Indians follow the culture and wish they were Aryans doesn't mean Indians have any assocition with Middle Eastern people. Plus if i know my history well, the Aryans settled in Pakistan not india!! Middle Eastern refers to geography. Anyone born in the Middle East is a Middle Easterner in everyway.

Im responding to the first post...Afghanistan should be considered in the mid-east becuase of religion, language, and its peoples culture which is very close to Iran....and who says iranians and afghans have the same blood as indians. Who ever said this dosnt really know anything about afghans and iranians becuase they would see that there is a HUGE! difference apperance wise, culture, and language vs indians. Another thing that boughthers me is that afghanistan is always thrown in with South asia if people read books that were made about iran and afghanistan in the 60s and 70s they were considerd middle-east but mainly central asia and afghanistan just becuase of norrthern pakistan should not be put in the same equation of south asia...if anything pakistan should be pulled to be made a permanent part of the mid-east or central asia (if you want to go with the culture similaraty ideal) becuase last time I checked pashto is originally a language of Afghanistan and pakistan...and North pakistan actually belongs to Iran and Afghanistan which thanks to the British empire who didnt know wht the hell they were doing made an agreement between the three countries to split border lands ( read the great game) and thats why you have this HOLy mess that united states and nato have to clean up or fix. So yes afghanistan & Pakistan has every right to be in the middle-east..india has no right

dude's this is about the middle east not anythin else you fricken morons

• • Why all this hating on Pakistan, must be a bunch of chauvinistic complexed and dilutional indians (were all the same) in here !! lol!!! face it guys, Pakistan a country a fraction your size, poorer and with a much smaller army has held its ground in what 4 wars against the billion plus indians, that now you have to come on wikipedia and spread dilutional information against it. I know many pakistani's and they are a lot more similar to us that indians will ever be. Also, it might help to look at a map, a large chunk of Pakistan lies on the Eastern Iranian plateau which is part of the middle east! So in my books, that makes Pakistan part of the middle east!!

• • By the way, Afghanistan and the Pakistani province Balochistan and some parts of Iran where there are Pashtuns and Baloch are Central Asian. Genetically they have been traced to tribes and people in Central Asia. Here's a good source example: [7]
  • After reading the article about a DNA trace about the 18 ethnicities in Pakistan, some in India, Iran, and Afghanistan, you can conclude that the people in these countries are from all over. A good portion of Iranians might be connected to people in Africa. Wouldn't this make you think that all these labels are just arbitrary, and you're all arguing over mere words.

• • If you're going to get worked up and spew all over a public forum, learn how to spell and use proper grammar, otherwise your spew looks even more ridiculous.
  • On a final note, maybe some should let people with real degrees and expertise in these topics handle the editing?

- Pakistan and Afghanistan are very much part of the Middle-East because they are overwhelmingly Middle eastern in culture, mannerism, demeanor, orientation and are Muslim with strong cultural ties to the "traditional Middle-East". The language scripts used in Afghanistan and Pakistan are solidly based on Arabic script, the problems faced by Afghans and Pakistanis is very much aligned and linked to the problems facing most Middle-Eastern socieities like Egypt, Syria, Jordan, etc. Also, events happening in the "traditional" Middle-East easily spill-over to Afghanistan and Pakistan and so any analysis of the Middle-East has to include these two countries.

-What is ludicrous is the use of this article on Middle East by Indians to harp their hegemonic designs: they are saying that Iranians, Indians, Pakistanis, and Afghans have the "same blood".....how stupid is that! More than half the territory Pakistan controls today was never under direct colonial British rule....the Baloch and the Northern part of Pakistan have functioned as semi-autonomous tribal areas with very very prounounced ties to Iran and Afghanistan.

-Afghanistan was NEVER part of British India and quite frankly the Afghans don't really care about India or identify themselves as Indians, they only take money from indians because the indians think they can gain some footings against Pakistan, a country a fraction their size and an army a tenth their size but that beats them every time, that middle eastern influence for ya, thats why I think Pakistan represents the eastern borders of the middle east, plus theirs a natural dessert between Pakistan and india..

-Iran same as India!!! what???: Indians better not equate themselves to Iran! Just because India accepted Zorastrian refugees from Iran doesn't make Iranians and Indians the same people! People are individuals and are free to do what they want: the Iranians who moved to India, did so, similarly, the Muslims who chose to stay in India stayed in India. India is 88% Hindu, 10% Muslim. And the 10% Muslims in India are spread throughout the large India. This does not mean that India has become a part of the Middle East. Indians' new found economic prosperity has made them think that a "greater India" will emerge not based on military invasions (that history has proven that India cannot touch Afghanistan or Iran or Pakistan now that it has nuclear weapons) but based on a cultural dimension: hence when Iranians, Afghans and Pakistanis watched translated Indian movies, the Indian feels that here's a chance to have a greater sphere of Indian influence: sad and pathetic. I agree thats very pathetic, there all over this wikipedia site, trying to alter history and fabricate lost of crap into their own indian version?? shessshh why are indians soo dilutional, they really need to be comfortable with being themselves and staying with their own kind in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh!

-Present-day India never was, is not and will never be part of the Middle East - the country is too large on its own and geographically, linguistically, ethnically, religiously very very different from the Middle East.

-Pakistan in fact is a creation and reflection of the rise of Middle-Eastern influence to the East of Arabia: everyone knows the role of Iranians, Turks, Afghans and Arabs in shaping Pakistan's destiny and very liberation. So Indians should mind their own business and find another outlet to vent their centruires old frustrations instead of making ridiculous claims about Pakistanis, Afghans, Iranians. These countries chose to be Muslim-majority countries and for better, for worse are intertwined with what happens to the Middle-East. Indians, including Indian Muslims, have made a choice to be a secular (although overwhelmingly Hindu) country and are quite happy with their choice. Why are they dragging Iranians, Afghans and Pakistanis into their "Black Hole". Congrats, you are a great country, leave us alone! No Pakistani, Irani or Afghani wants to be an Indian at any level! The sooner they realize that the better for them....they will save a lot of energy.

Pakistan's look more middle-eastern, Indians are a completely different peoples and have nothing to do with the middle east despite all their crying and protests. From what I understand, only a smaller refugee minority called the Mohajir in Pakistan are from india, the other 96% of the population is NOT!!.. Also, I have met quite a few Pakistani's, they are indeed quite different from indians, Sri Lankans, Pakistani culture and mannerism is closer to that of the middle east, its not simply based on colour as indians always do... whats wrong with indians???? are they dilutional????

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahatma2008 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

In any case modern Indian nation state is based on ideas of multiculturalism [8] and civic nationalism, not culture or 'race'. There are some problems with this, but the majority of Indians subscribe to a Gandhian or Ambedkarian version of nationalism, whereas most of Middle East nationalism is religious in nature. So trying to put India here is ludicrous. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Well the offending anon has been inactive for a few days now. I'd like to unprotect the page, I'll that's alright with everyone. I'll do so, if there aren't any objections, in say... 24 hours or so. blankfaze | (беседа!) 08:53, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, please unprotect. Adam 10:57, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Unprotected. blankfaze | (беседа!) 01:57, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I take it your unprotecting it because it's so overprotected. I don't need nobody tellin me what I gotta do.

I think the map titiled "A map showing middle eastern countries in their native scripts" which shows India as a middle-eastern country as well, is wrong. No other map in this article shows India as part of the middle-east. I think this map should be revised/removed. people unless you have some sort of sight problem then you can obviously understand that there is a massive difference between the people of iran and afghanistan and those of pakistan and india. As pakistan was once part of india there roots are tied and comparing there language, culture and just plain looks with people from the countries of the "middle east" shows no resemblance. Iran and afghanistan on the other hand are very similar in language, culture and heritage and have many ties in history with arab countrys where pakistan and india don't. Anyway no matter what is written in the article people will still see indians and pakistanin people and not classify them as middle eastern... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.243.40 (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

"Some have criticized the term Middle East for its perceived Eurocentrism: The region is only east when considered from the perspective of western Europe. To an Indian, it lies to the west; to a Russian, it lies to the south."

This is silly...with regard to the internationally recognized Prime Meridian, the Middle East is exactly that. Not that this should be removed from the article...I just felt a need to say that

User:68.38.159.93

This is not silly; the paragraph makes a valid point. —Lowellian (talk) 09:30, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Whatever the case, the section doesn't tell us who these critics are, instead utilizing that wonderful collection of weasel words, "some have criticized", second only to "some critics believe". Even if the author believes this to be "common knowledge", and everyone else who contributes here is aware of these critics, that's not good enough for the Wikipedia. It shouldn't be too difficult to find a few references if the position is at least somewhat common in the international community, and for some reason I don't doubt that it is. 68.9.205.10 02:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The Eurocentrism article contains similiar information and also does not offer references. 68.9.205.10 02:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

While I am not a fan of the criticism (which seems inane, any geographical reference is going to have some 'center' - and 'Middle East' is hardly inherently insulting), it hardly needs to be cited. The quoted phrase is blandly NPOV, although I suppose the "To an Indian...." part could be rephrased, but this is hardly all that important. (collounsbury 04:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC))

I agree that it is neutral, though perhaps response to the criticism should be included (even if that response is rather easy to envision).

I did remove the template, because it ultimately served no other purpose than to distract from the article, as I do not intend to remove the information even if no source is given. I would simply like to see some sort of reference. It's a pet peeve: unreferenced "some critics believe" claims infuriate me, regardless of the viewpoint introduced. 68.9.205.10 05:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I looked around and found an article that, among other things (most largely irrelevent to the Wikipedia or beyond the scope of the article) criticizes Western naming conventions. I'm adding that "West Asia" is sometimes used as an alternative name. [9] I'm going to add it to external links since it demonstrates that frustration over the term exists. 68.9.205.10 05:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't recall the alternatives offered, most times I have seen this criticsm (as such), it has been aimed at blasting "Eurocentrism." Nothing terribly interesting. (collounsbury 05:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC))

I agree. But it's late and I needed something to do to kill a few minutes. "West Asia", though, seems like it would be a fairly common alternative when one is actually offered. Anyway, I added the reference, even though much of it is probably irrelevent. Something better is needed, I think.68.9.205.10 05:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I wonder when the term came into play and why? It seems to be a recent term. Definitely not in Tacitus', Herodotus', or Josephus' writings, just to name a few. In the discovery of where Israel, Egypt, and Ethiopia are, do you think Europeans (the elite), were repugnant to discover that much of this area was considered Africa. Just a thought. I still think it is strange going to museums and seeing Africa and Egypt separated in exhibits. Kind of like separating Georgia from the United States. Interesting.

Up untill at least WWI 'near east' was the common term heard in Britain. It may be worth mentioning that in Hebrew the term 'mizrah ha-tihon' or 'eastern Mediterranean' is used.

It is my understanding that the term Middle East was invented by the US state department following WWII.

I never heard the US Dep. of State "invention" story, but in any case it is a usage that emerged slowly in the post WWII period. However, in re museums seperating Egypt and sub-Saharan Africa, it makes perfect sense. While Egypt clearly had historical contacts w N. E. Africa, ancient Egypt was largely part of the Mesopotamian world and more generally a rule to itself. The great Sudd marshes, plus the Sahara were quite effective barriers. I have no idea what the second sentence means. (collounsbury 04:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC))

The whole tenure of this discussion is silly and stinks of political correctness. There is no malevolent Euro-centrism or evil political incorrectness involved in the invention of the term, the historical use of the term or the continued use of the term. The term is nuttin but a useful, accurate, encompassing and benevolent geographical reference - always was and always will be. It was invented by Europeans (as were the terms’ siblings Far East and Near East) to provide direction to the region; necessarily, it has a European slant. But whining about the obviously requisite Euro-view is a dumb as whining about the Greenwich meridian’s being Euro-centric – should we change that too? You could compose a list a mile long of terms that describe things from a Western point of view; the only people who are upset about those things are the timid, shivering busy bodies schooled in political correctness, so scared to offend anyone at all that they can’t even function anymore. Get real: Middle East is not "centric", it is not "colonial", it is not "insular", it is not anything negative - it's a location! Just as New Yorkers refer to the Mid West when talking about Iowa, Canadians refer to the North when mentioning the Yukon, and Soviets referred to The West as anything East of Moscow, we shall continue to refer to the Middle East when referring to Palestine, Mesopotamia and Persia. Hey, the only thing insulting about the Middle East is the death count caused by the fanatical and inscrutable leaders of bickering little brat countries fighting endlessly over a bunch of crappy dust. Maybe the Middle East should be re-colonised by European powers and spanked until it grows up or becomes civil. And I wish the media would stop calling it the Mid-East – that’d be Pennsylvania.137.186.248.248 18:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

According to Roger Adelson's Sir Mark Sykes: Portrait of an Amateur it was Sykes who first used the term Middle East on a map that he drew c 1917 for the British Foreign & Colonial Office. This is probably not surprising as he was co-author of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, and was kept quite busy during the last years of his life redrawing political maps of the region from the perspective of the victorious Triple Entente powers. They were the base maps that were used to get agreement between all the participants of the Treaty of Versailles, the Conference of London and the Sanremo conference. You can take this info at face value and then infer any hidden meaning or POV you like from the name. Ephebi 23:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Could someone remove this sentence 'So in shorter words, the term Middle East came about when the UK/French part of the world used the term.' from the Crititicism and Usage section. It concludes the paragraph discussing archaeological use of the term 'Near East'. So far as I can see, what it expresses is previously established, it's not grammatically correct 'In shorter words' ought be 'In short' and 'UK/French' ought be 'British/French' or 'Western European'. It's a poor and unnecessary sentence, but I can't remove it. Is the page locked? Philjupiter 21:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's face it, the Eurocentric thing is plain wrong from a historical perspective. The term was NOT first used by the continental Europeans but by the British and the Americans, who are perfectly happy to refer to themselves as "The West". "Eurocentric" is revisionary political correctness in this context. I'm going to change it soon unless somebody can come up with a coherent reason for it remaining.--Farry (talk) 12:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I was looking for a Wikipedia:Middle East-related regional notice board to drop a note onto, but there doesn't seem to be one. FYI, there is now a {{MEast-stub}} for the non-location related articles. - BanyanTree 03:09, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To the authors of this article:

The opening paragraphs of this article shocks me, as there is no mention of the Kurdish language, one of the four great languages of the region prior to the addition of Hebrew in recent times. Surely, the twenty million or so Kurdish speakers deserve some recognition in this article!?!

But the great thing about Wikipedia is that anybody can be an author - all you have to do is sign in and you can add it yourself, along with any other information!!

Ramallite ^(talk) 5 July 2005 03:28 (UTC)

why is the history section so short? not to mention the run-on in the last sentence

• I think that's because "Middle East" is such an incorrect word that even defining history would be too confusing. Since it is not a single Nation or a "pact of similar nations" it is impossible to make a general statement on history or culture. As others have explained here, there is a myriad of languages, people and races in the "Middle East". Therefore you cannot speak of 1 history or 1 culture who dominates the "Middle East". It's like referring "Red fruits" to all fruits that have something reddish in them (then the key characteristics such as species, exotic/tempered etc. become irrelevant). Would you consider a red apple and a tropical fruit such as the pitaya to share the same botanical characteristics or origins? No, of course not. Same goes for "Middle Eastern" countries.

All the Muslim nations from Moroco to Pakistan are part of Middle East. This my two cents. The map is a bit limiting as it seems to create hard borders for the ME even though the ME (like similar geocultural terms like 'Europe' 'the West' 'South Asia') is very flexibly defined geographically. It would probably be better to have a map like [[10]] with the current states in full green but with a light green for the rest of North Africa/Sudan/Pakistan/Afghanist etc. --CJWilly 21:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Good point. It would be cool if there could be a map that referred to the vague notions of the region and the arbitrary borders etc. Most of the maps I see go from one definition to the next and are copyrighted. Perhaps an administrator can lend a hand here so that one of us could generate a similar map, but one that includes what you refer to regarding the American south. Either way, it's a good idea. Tombseye 12:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Take also an example from Central Asia. CG 08:27, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that Central Asia map is a good example of how Central Asia varies as well. Something like that for the Middle East section would be great. Especially how CJWilly described it with full green to light green. In fact, it would be ideal if it even overlapped over countries such as being light green for northern Sudan, but excluding southern Sudan which is more sub-Saharan. Tombseye 00:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I've been playing with PhotoShop and here's what I got so far. As you might notice, I was quite generous with the very pale green as it includes all Arab League states, Xinjiang and Kazakhstan. I'm thinking of removing some of these as it's probably pushing the definition a bit too hard. --CJWilly 12:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Somalia is considered as "middle eastern" yet shares the same culture with a few other countries in the Horn of Africa and they are not middle eastern. However most of the north African countries (like Egypt) can definetly be considered as the middle east.

You're right, the horn of africa as well as morocco are very hardly considered middle-east countries. But, it stills a great map, great effort. CG 13:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Well that's the trouble with terms like 'Greater Middle East' it's connotation I think is much more cultural than strictly geographic so it's really hard to understand what is meant by the term. I've found the G8 definition and changed the map to have the traditional definition, the G8 definition and a broader definition which has essentially all the West Asian Muslims which I'm not sure what to do with and finally a third without the last colour.

I'm not sure whether to drop the last colour entirely or not. I think places like Armenia, Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan can be described to have 'middle-east-style' politics and to an extent culture.

--CJWilly 18:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Great maps CJ! One thing though, I'd exclude southern Sudan technically, but that's a small quibble. The variation from dark green, medium green, and light green works for me, but regardless the new map is vast improvement. Personally, I'd also put Somalia as lightest green because it lacks the aspect of geographic continuity with the other countries included as well. The lightest extending to the Caucasus and the southern portions of Central Asia would be ideal, and that's just my two cents. Tombseye 08:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)cool

Great maps! In my opinion EVERY Wikipedia entry should have a map to go with the text. ;] The idea of having more than one shade of green to distinguish visually between "core" and "preriphery" makes good sense to me. Interestingly, the UN considers the three Caucasian states to be West Asian, while Iran is included in South Asia. Transcontinental Egypt is possibly both core Middle Eastern and North African. I would exclude Central Asia and westernmost China from both core and periphery definitions, though. Regardless of any subjective "feeling" or "vibes" that a visiting outsider might get from the architecture and mentality and general ambience of those societies, they are not seen as and do not see themselves as Middle Eastern. Perhaps the article need to be clearer on what criteria define this region in its stricter and wider senses, respectively? --Big Adamsky 21:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey BA, I added some information on the borders issue of the region. I think some parts of Central Asia do link to the ME, while others do not so I put that in and left western China out completely as it is explained quite well in the Central Asia article. Lastly, the Caucasus is sometimes considered European and sometimes Asian as the border between Europe and Asia is arbitrary and has not geologic significance other than maintaining Europe as a cultural zone and more accurately a peninsula (as is Asia) of the real continent of Eurasia. I think it's okay to have Egypt in both the ME and North Africa as the Middle East is clearly a culture zone rather than a geographic entity and the criteria are I think can be defined with common historical currents, linguistic similarities (with the big three 'Turkic', Indoeuropean, and Semitic represented), religious similarity (related Western semitic faiths of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity), and geographic continuity or connectiveness (thus I think Somalia can't be included because it's too far and is not geographically linked in any way). This is what I think defines the Greater Middle East that is actually composed of a core of West Asian states and outlying overlapping states that link the region to neighboring regions in various ways. Tombseye 21:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Is anyone opposed to the new map we have here? I found this in the Southwest Asia article. If it's good enough for that article, then it's good enough for this. Also, the Middle East in not the same as the Greater Middle East. I've moved the old image there. The old map was a political map. Middle East is mosly a historical/cultural region. Aucaman^Talk 16:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I find it strong ideological POV to put a map of the "Greater Middle East", a term that is not officially used by the G8 that I know (in any cases, the point is not there), but was invented by the Bush administration for the purposes of backing up the thesis of a "civilization clash", bringing together widely various & heteregoneous countries under the term "Greater Middle East", which no serious scholar use. I therefore have removed the map. A map with the real Middle East would be much more appropriate. Tazmaniacs 21:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hm.. the more I click my way around on these pages, the more I come to realize that perspectives and understandnings on all these exotic regions and continents vary and are highly subjective and even biased. Perhaps the English usage is much more inconsistent, unprecise and overlapping than the native-speakers' usage. If so, this is similar to other vaguely-defined regions that are found in the minds of distant groups of people and mean different things to them. See also Talk:Siberia, Talk:Latin America, Talk:Scandinavia and Talk:Balkans, and also exonym versus autonym for similar discussions of namings and meanings. //Big Adamsky 18:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

"Exotic regions"? In any case, English usage is merely different than rather than more inconsistent etc. than in-region references. In region usage regarding identity is obviously going to be differant due to different focus. (Collounsbury 04:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC))

If this region is defined av "Middle East", where is now the former "Near East"? As far as I know the change is not geographic but politic. Before WW II the region was actually called The Near East, no one used "The Middle East". So who made the change of meaning, and who put the Near East in Europe?

The change in usage evolved. Nothing particularly sinister. Near East fell out of fashion, Middle East came into fashion. (Collounsbury 04:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)).

"Hebrew, a Near Eastern language, is spoken in Israel, a Middle Eastern country." A crisis in the "Middle East" takes place on the same land, and sometimes even in the same cities, as described in a book about the "Ancient Near East". If that's not inconsistency, I don't know what is. The Romans referred to Egypt and everything east of the Mediterranean as "The Orient". That was apparently good enough for them, since their contact with anything east of Persia was fairly minimal. Still today, both German and French refer to Palestine as being in the Near East, as do most humanitic disciplines in English. In other words, "Middle East" as we know it in English today is a relatively recent term political in origin that has since eclipsed the previous usage, because it became convenient to British and American foreign policy to refer to one region. "The Middle East is a historical and cultural subregion of Africa-Eurasia traditionally held to be countries or regions in Southwest Asia together with Egypt". "Traditionally"? The usage referring to Egypt or Palestine is not even 100 years old. Janko 16:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Janko

I think that as the edit war in Talk:Jerusalem/capital ended with "Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Israel, although the status of the eastern part of the city is disputed." on the page, Jerusalem should have a star on it in the map, as right now Israel has no capitol there, and I think this is slightly not NPOV. Again, refer to that Talk article for the entire dispute, that I'm pretty sure ended with this conclusion. --Syxed 08:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, since the Israeli government sits at Jerusalem, the capital of the country is at Jerusalem. The larger question in discussion on Jerusalem is of course, the Palestinian assertion that at least part of the city belongs to them. They too, would like to set up their capital at Jerusalem. Israel's policy is that the entire city belongs to Israel, and it shall remain that way.

Right so my point would be to change the map to reflect the fact that it is a capital, and therefore, put a start there by it.--Syxed 06:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The status of Jerusalem is and remains disputed. While the Israeli government operates from Jerusalem, very few governments, including Western governments, acknowledge the annexation, and thus maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv. The most widely internationally recognised capital is Tel Aviv. (collounsbury 07:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC))

How's any of this related to an article on the Middle East as a region? Aucaman^Talk 16:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Tel Aviv is NOT considered Israel's capital, and it has never been. Jerusalem is considered its capital, because most people who do not accept Jerusalem as the capital are those who do not acknowledge Israel as an independent country.

Jerusalem was determined its capital in 1949 by David Ben Gurion, Israel's former prime minister. Most countries who construct their embasies in Tel Aviv do not do so because they do not see Jerusalem as Israel's capital- they just don't want to appear to be against the Arabs. Adarsharon (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC) I'd like to know where you guys get your sources.

Is there any special reason why it's neccessary to have The Middle East (Turkish:Ortadoğu) as the first part of the opening sentence? Is the Turkish name for the region particularly important in this article? Surely the Arabic term would be more appropriate? Dewrad 02:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.221.109 (talk) 06:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Why the Arabic should be there? more than 150 million people in that region don't speak arabic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiften1981 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes there are most arabs in Middle East, so it would be better to start with the arabic name, then the iranian and than the turkish name.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahatma2008 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Most people here don't seem to understand the difference between the Middle East and the Greater Middle East. They're two different things and have to be put in two different articles. If there isn't enough information to create a new article for the Greater Middle East, then it needs to be a section in this article until there's enough information to move it to a new article. But, as of now, the two definition are somehow combined in a very random way. Aucaman^Talk 02:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It's explained in the article. It seems that a lot of people have trouble with a lot of things, but I'm not sure a new article is the solution, but a section might work out as regions such as the Maghrib and Afghanistan are clearly as Middle Eastern as either Iran or Egypt and thus require inclusion as many academic departments and int'l organizations do. Tombseye 06:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that more description of the G8 Greater Middle East definition would be helpful, perhaps as a subsection of "Borders". As a separate article, I feel it would be very difficult to avoid being a POV fork. --Mgreenbe 12:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

As I work in the region I would say that I often find that the Middle East in popular English speaking imagination includes the entire 'Arab World' plus Iran. Sometimes as well Afghanistan and Pakistan. It seems worthwhile covering the G8 Broader/Greater Middle East insofar as it has no small overlap with popular usage (and in fact some academic and professional usage). (Collounsbury 00:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)).

Factual accuracy dispute tagging should be reserved for those articles which are simply wrong, or in which key facts cannot be resolved. In this case, there seems to be a desire to make a change to the article. That's a fine thing, but rather than slapping a tag on the page, why not make or discuss the change. The factual accuracy tag calls the entire content of the page into question for a reader and that does not seem to be appropriate in this case. -Harmil 01:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Once again: this does not look like an actual dispute of the accuracy of the article, so much as a desire to clarify and expand a specific topic. I'll remote the {{Dispute}} tag unless someone can provide a specific list of the concerns about the accuracy of the article. -Harmil 17:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I have spotted a factual error. The article says, besides Causasus and Cyprus, that other countries have a Christian majority, putting Lebanon in parenthesis. Lebanon does not have a Christian majority and I am not sure that any other countries do either. Some of the following stuff will have to be edited too. Mythyval 14:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I've made some changes to reflect some of my concerns. I've also taken off the dispute tag. The new definition is consistent with the definitions given in academia and various scholarly texts. I'm also going to create a new article, Greater Middle East, which deals with the modern political definition. Aucaman^Talk 23:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This is all good, and I'm glad that you are creating a page to detail the Greater Middle East. Removing the image that depicts both the Middle East and the Greater Middle East, however, seems not to be useful. Just make the reference in the caption into a link to your new page. Having duplicate images (even though they differ slightly) is not the solution to this. Please, leave the image that many editors above have approved of where it is. Thanks. -Harmil 22:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I've already explained my reasoning above, but I guess you missed it? The map of the Greater Middle East is not relevant to this article. The map that you have right now is a political map (map of countries, not a region) and is not relevant to this article. The Middle East is a historical/cultural region. That's like putting a map of the American continent in the geography of the United States article. Just because the Greater Middle East contains the phrase "Middle East" it doesn't mean its image should be here! This should be pretty straightforward - I don't understand why you're making me repeat myself.

Here's your edit summary:"We do not need two images of the same thing." Well, they're not the same thing. The one I was putting up is the map of the Middle East. This other one is the map of the Greater Middle East. And they're not the same thing. Now, can we have a map of the Middle East (and nothing else) in the Middle East article? Aucaman^Talk 05:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. When I said, "we do not need two images of the same thing", I wasn't saying that I was RESTORING two images of the same thing, but that you had taken an image that put the Middle East in context of what the G8 refers to as the Greater Middle East with both highlighted (Image:GreaterMiddleEast2.png), and replaced it with a DUPLICATE (slightly different, but the same region and same infromation, Image:Middle east.jpg) of the map that occurs later on in the article (Image:MiddleEast.png). That's not helpful. The map of the eastern hemisphere with ME and GME highlighted is one that quite a few editors above said that they were happy with. You want to break GME off into its own article, that's great. You should just mark up the caption on the first image to link to your new article. The image gives the reader an excellent initial grasp of the concept of both regions. There's simply nothing wrong with it that I can see. Your suggestion that political borders are somehow a problem seems strange, given that the map you are inserting has the very same political borders, it's just a smaller map with more detail. I think they're both quite useful, and thank you for finding a good replacement for the second image, which was a little harder to read. -Harmil 13:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well what do you say we just replace the first picture with the second and just take out the second one? (That way the article would have only one picture.) I'll also try to look for better pictures of the region. Aucaman^Talk 23:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman, you're trying to insist that this image that CJWilly created is a problem because it lists two pieces of information rather than one. Tombseye, Big Adamsky, and myself all felt that this image was an excellent addition that really showed off the difference between the two. Adding a link to GME gives the reader the ability to easily compare and constrast the two. Again, I don't think there's a need to reduce information here. The information presented is accurate, and well documented, and if there's any potential for confusion, you could just cal out in the caption something like, "The traditional (cultural) Middle East and the G8's (political) Greater Middle East." There. No problem, and still highly useful information when combined with the later map that you so helpfully found. -Harmil 23:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I have already explained my reasoning. I just don't think the Greater ME is notable or relevant enough to have a map in this article. That's like putting a map of the American continent in the geography of the United States article. Just because the Greater Middle East contains the phrase "Middle East" it doesn't mean its image is relevant to this article. And most of these other users commented on the image when we had the old definition. This is basically between you and I. But I don't really have the time to argue about this right now, so we get to keep the image you like. Aucaman^Talk 00:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concern. I do not share it (and wouldn't mind such an image at geography of the United States for context, either... actually, I think it's the Western bias of Wikipedia that makes us think we don't need such an image there, when in fact we do need to provide visual context). So then there's the question: what compromise can we reach? I've suggested a caption wording change, and also incorporated the image that you found. That doesn't seem to be good enough for you, even though you're the only one with a problem, and no one else seems to be confused by the image. -Harmil 00:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

HI there I was wondering, wasnt Ethiopia and Eritrea considered to be apart of the Middle East? I mean in the 1950s when the Roosevelt had a meeting with the middle eastern leaders, they also included Ethiopia and its ruler (Haile Selassie) at the time? So how did Ethiopia and Eritrea become excluded? Eritrea (especially) almost always fits the map.

Before oil was discovered in the middle east what was the British interest in the region as the great power of the time ? --213.55.95.4 16:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It was always the most direct route to India, particularly after the Suez Canal opened in the 1870s. – Cranston Lamont 04:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Persia was one of the battle grounds of The Great Game. The Ottoman Empire was a counterbalance against Tsarist expansionism. The Gulf was home to pirates that threatened Anglo-Indian sea routes. All influenced British foreign policy in the region. Ephebi 16:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Afghanistan and Pakistan are a region at the crossroads of Central Asia, Middle East, and South Asia. Also, linguastically, over half of the population speaks Farsi, Pashto, Balochi etc.. (which are Middle Eastern languages). And culturally (besides religion) they have many similiarties. Also, phenotypically, probably half of them are indistinguishable. And it is a part of the Iranian Plateau, which in this article is described as part of the Middle East. With these factors in mind, can we consider Pakistan/Afghanistan at least PARTLY Middle East?? (personally, I consider it to be a part of all 3 of Central Asia, South Asia, and Middle East)

What are the advantages of being considered "middle-eastern" besides getting a little more fame and being grouped into the same grouping as Arabic speakers?--71.235.94.254 15:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I am a Liberal British Jew who has just read the 'enlightening article' detailing the root causes of the middle east conflict [http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a2449.htm#001). Although I do not support Israel's current actions, I found the article to be highly anti-semitic, over-simplistic and factually tenuous. Surely this is not the kind of article to be educating people in an objective way? Does anyone know of an article/link that would explain the complexity of the situation objectively?

I think Turkey is not in Mideast because Turkey's Asian lands called as Minor Asia already. It's disputed.

• If Turkey should be referred to as Asia Minor, then Iran and Afghanistan should also be firstly referred to as Asia (or Asia Minor). The term "Middle East" meant from the beginning the middle of Asia (West of China). The erroneous term “Middle East” should include countries in the Levant and not countries East of Greece (Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, etc.). Countries in the Levant share much more in common than with Turkey or Iran for instance. I wish we all could stop using the term “Middle East”. It’s very racist and non accurate.

Turkey is not in MideastZylan (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know that Northwestern China and Kazakhtan are part of the Middle East, and they are rather related to the categorisation of the Mongol racial stock - Middle Easterners are not related to this racial stock. It's weird to say the Chinese are Middle Easterners. Have you heard of people who look Chinese calling themselves Middle Easterners? I don't think so. I think these countries are disputed to be part of the Middle East too.

I agree here, that is taking it to far. Kazakhistan, Uzbekhistan, Kirghizistan, Türkmenistan and Tadjikistan Central Asian countries. China is Asian or Eastern Asian.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahatma2008 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Indo european languages are not a european trait. The indian subcontinent is the region with the highest no of indo european speakers, by far and it is not in Europe. Europe is home to turkic, finno-ugric, basque languages which are all non indo european. Someone correct this blatant misinformation. The middle east means areas ecompassing semitic and persian cultures.

The middle east means areas ecompassing semitic and persian cultures

???}£$]£@}€???? Your claim is so ignorant. Your statement proves that you have no clue of what you are talking about. actually, you are the one with the "blatant misinformation" . Let me inform you on simple claims that you incorrectly have made:

• "persian culture" is a minority amongst Iranian cultures. In fact look up the word Persian. Kurds are not Persians but are part of the Iranic cultures, such as Ossetians, Persians, Tajiks. "persian culture" is not a general statements like "semitic culture". It's like saying "animals such as mamels and a fish".
• Since when is Europe home to "turkic" people? Since Charlemagne or the Romans? Europe is today a geo-political term rather than cultural (since Turkey and Morocco would want to participate)
• No the middle east is certainly not "ecompassing" semites and persians (LOL)only. (Armenians who are neither Iranic nor Semitic are so called "middle eastern".

I have noticed the following paragraph about Israel:

"The State of Israel also represents a unique fusion of European and Middle Eastern traits, but because of geographic continuity with the Levant and a majority population that is predominantly Middle Eastern (including Sephardi Jews, Sabras, Israeli Arabs), it perhaps shares more similarities with its neighbors than is readily apparent from media coverage."

Culturally speaking and even with physique (particularly the Mizrahis and Sephardis), the Jews are rather more related to the Arabs (related via Abraham with his sons Isaac (ancestor of the Jewish people) and Ishmael (ancestor of the Arab people)) than the Europeans anyway - so it's fair to say that Israel is part of the Middle East. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.15.122.35 (talk) 08:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

I think this paragraph is both POV and nonacademic. Firstly, the term "middle eastern" is ambiguous, in a sense almost all Jews are "middle eastern", since they originated from the region thousands of years ago. However, The majority of Jews in Israel (Ashkenazi Jews who came from Europe and North America, and "Russian" Jews who came from the former U.S.S.R), can arguably be said to have a much stronger similarity and cultural ties to the countries in which they lived and developed for hundreds and thousands of years between their exile from Israel in Ancient times and their return during the previous century. Also, The large Israeli Arab population, and even more so the Mizrachi Jewish population might have been culturally influenced by the State of Israel, established in "Western" style, and thus their actual descent is irrelevant.

On the other hand, Israeli society may indeed have been influenced by its neighbours and "oriental" population and may have become more similar to its surrounding countries rather than to the west.

Thus, one can easily see that the various populations' descent is no indication for the country's character whatsoever, and so this whole paragraph seems to me to be inappropriate, and I believe it should be removed or radically revised.

Tal :) 08:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Arabs = Jews. Yeah, I think they both are the same people and have similar sense of stubbornness and vengeance. Take a look at what's going on between Israel and its Arab neighbours (Lebanon and Palestine). Physically, they both look the same - as a result, if they both dress up either as Bedouins or European Jews, you won't be able to tell the difference until you know their names and possibly the languages they speak.

They look the same? I don't see many blond, red or brown haired Arabics with white skin and murky blue eyes! I guess the fraud os a religion and ficticous history clouds your thinking.

Greetins from a blond, blue eyed 100% muslim Iraqi!:)...like the rest of my family...many lebanese, palestinians & syrians!:) (besides you are only refering to ashkanezi jews!...sephardi and mizrahi look like the "arabs" everyone thinks of...like the guy from lost...whos indian but is supposed to play an iraqi?? haha!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.136.253.166 (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The article states: "Most Western definitions of the 'Middle East' – in both established reference books and common usage – define the region as 'nations in Southwest Asia, from Iran to Egypt'". None of the definitions I could find in well known Western reference books reflect this claim: Webster Dictionary defines the Middle East thus “The area around the eastern Mediterranean; from Turkey to North Africa..” [11]. American Heritage dictionary's definition is "An area comprising the countries of southwest Asia and northeast Africa."[12] Britannica Concise Encyclopedia's definition is "Geographic region where Europe, Africa, and Asia meet." and Columbia University Press definition is: "term traditionally applied by western Europeans to the countries of SW Asia and NE Africa lying W of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India" [13]. The article in full Encyclopedia Britannica defines the Middle East as “the lands around the southern and eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea” [14]. The encyclopedia Encarta states “Middle East: region stretching from Egypt to Iran: the region stretching from the eastern Mediterranean to the western side of the Indian subcontinent, including Egypt, the Arabian Peninsula, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Iran, and Iraq”[15]. The The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy says "Region in western Asia and northeast Africa that includes the nations on the Arabian Peninsula, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Turkey.[16]

Another dubious claim in the article is this: "One widely used definition of 'Middle East' is that of the airline industry, maintained by the IATA standards organization." IATA's definitions are indeed widely used by the airline industry, but surely not widely by anybody else. Also IATA is not a "standards organization". Dianelos 07:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

added refs for all claims, changed most to many. Note the referenced article talking about 2 main definitions - the CIA factbook and IATA. Turkey seems to be discussed in the article, but with its closing in to join the European Union I think some of references above are outdated. See minor asia comment above. Amoruso 08:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

||A map showing middle eastern countries in their native scripts This image portrays much of South Asia as being part of the Middle East, which is clearly wrong and asanine. Either this image must be modified or should not be on this page as it portrays false information Thegreyanomaly 08:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I have modified the image to become more accurate Thegreyanomaly 08:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[image changed from inline to link by —Charles P._(Mirv) 18:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)]

contribs) 00:24, 12 November 2006. 

I question the utility of a map that includes eight languages in six different scripts (seven if you separate Persian and Arabic). To the average English speaker they are all equally meaningless squiggles; even people who speak one of the languages aren't going to be able to read most of the rest.

It also omits the fact that Israel has two official languages, shows the West Bank as part of Jordan, and includes the countries of the Caucasus, which is debatable at best.

I agree that it should stay out. In fact I think it should probably be deleted: it's licensed for non-commercial use only, and the claim of fair use is highly dubious, since it's so easily recreatable (it would be trivial to take, say, Image:Map-Region-Middle-East.png and add the native names). —Charles P._(Mirv) 18:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed this because it's simple not logical.

"Turkey is a secular and democratic country, long-time member of NATO, is currently in accession talks to join the European Union and has a Latin alphabet. Even so Turkey is usually considered Middle Eastern, because of its Islamic population and geographic proximity."

Turkey's history and culture is all Middle East, not european. Ancient history is asian. No need to remove anything here.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahatma2008 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Turkey has nothing to do with the Middle East. Being Asian doesn't mean being Middle Eastern. Remove it. Zylan (talk) 00:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not know enough about the region, but according to the information in this article, it sounds as if Mashriq might be best merged here. Then again, if there is enough information to create a separate article as with Maghreb, it would of course be inappropriate. Paliku 20:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Merging this is probably going to get everyone going again as it seems that a lot of the dispute here is about definitions 8-) I certainly think a link to it is very informative as it shows a non Western view. Ephebi 16:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

AGAINST, the merging of Mashriq with the Middle East. They are seperate terms, with seperate parameters. Technajunky 04:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

AGAINST, as above. Both are essentially culturally defined geographical concepts, which are very different. At the moment the other article would just drown in this one. But both should be more cross-linked.

I notice there's no merge tag on the other articleJohnbod 02:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

AGAINST As with the first two, Mashriq is a distinct term that refers to only a portion of what is commonly considered the Middle East. For completeness, I've added a merge tag on the Mashriq article. AdamSolomon 03:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose – Middle east is extremely vague and imprecise, while Mashriq is somewhat more specific, and also narrower. In modern use, "Mashriq" usually excludes Egypt, while everyone would say that Egypt is part of the Middle East! It may not seem tidy, but there are reasons why Wikipedia has separate articles covering a whole series of partially overlapping geographical terms (Mashriq, Levant, Bilad al-Sham, Greater Syria, Fertile Crescent, Middle East, etc.) – each term has its own particular distinct historical context and range of variations in use. AnonMoos 08:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

AGAINST – Mashriq and Middle East are two different things, as somebody already explained in this page, both culturally and geographically. They're not synonims. Middle East is essentially a word coined by "westerners" (based on colonial definitions) while the other is not.Moreover, while there's no dispute on what Mashriq is (which countries are included in the area), Middle East is not so easy to define, as the numbers of countries included changes (depending on time or on criteria used by the writer/speaker).

Considering both this and the Mashriq pages have discussions against a merge, I am going to take the liberty of removing the merge tags. Joshdboz 19:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is about the geography topic, not culture. "Middle East" is geography, not culture. This article needs a major fixing. Nemedia 13:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have cleaned up the geography section so it is just about geography. Before it was almost unreadable and looked like a jumbled mish-mash of someones opinions. There is a principle called KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid!) It applies here very importantly, because it is a contentious and sensitive issue among peoples of the region, and also because there is no "universal" or "official" definition. Nemedia 14:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that the Greater Middle East map/description only includes Israel and nations that have a Muslim majority, but it does not include nations that have a cultural and historical connection to the Middle East. For example, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and most nations that celebrate No Ruz are not included in the "Greater Middle East", but have very strong ties to Iranian culture and history. (These nations have much closer cultural and historical ties to Iran than Iran does to any Arab nation.)

Also, someone above mentioned that no Middle Easterner live in China, but what about Tajiks in Western China? And as far as no Middle Easterner looking "Asian", what about Turkomens throughout the Middle East? (Remember, the Mongol Hordes did sweep through the Middle East, and the Khans ruled over parts of the old Persian empire for quite a long time.) Mochajava13 09:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Clearly the term "Middle East" is a controversy today. In the 1800th century it was used to refer to countries West of China (Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkey etc.), but that reference is totally different today: One can be Moroccan and the other Kurdish and still be wrongly located in this same statement, "middle east". The Great Eurasian Lake, the Caspian Sea is classified in the same category as the African river, the Nile. How logical is that? Therefore the Middle East is neither a cultural nor a geographical term. The general perceptions of intelligent people is that “Middle East” is purely a political term for countries who are not respecting International commitments/agreements or countries who are predominantly Muslims (or jewish –> Israel).

Both of these religions were practiced by Iranic tribes in Central Asia long before the Medes and Persians moved to the Iranian plateau (the so called "Middle East"). Zoroaster's birth place is somewhere North East of the Caspian Sea and Mithras was also known in India. The Persians later adopted these religions and spread them in the "Middle East" (and later to the Romans). These religions belong to the large group of Iranian peoples, that belong in the mountainous Central Asia and not the arid "Middle East". Please correct that.

Armenia ,Georgia and Azerbaijan should not be included in the term "Greater Middle East".These countries are members of numerous European organization and have very little cultural or sociopolitical ties with most of the Middle East

Whoever said Armenia should not be included as the "Greater Middle East" is an idiot. Politically Armenia may be a European country, but we've absorbed many cultural aspects of the Middle Eastern life, and we are closer to Middle Easterners and Persians than we are with Europeans. Historically this has been the mistake of Armenia, Armenians have always tried to side with Europeans and to desperately form alliances with them. However, the Europeans have always ignored Armenia's cries for help, and they do not even consider us friends. Persians and Arabs have done some bad things to Armenians, but its nothing any other Empire or Kingdom wouldn't do (Europeans have done worse to us). However they have always helped us through the years, my great-grandfather found refuge in the Syiran city of Haleb. I think everybody knows here how friendly Armenians, Persians, and Arabs are so I am not going to explain that any further. Europeans have constantly betrayed Armenians, and have treated it like a colony, they turned their backs on us in the Paris Peace Conference after WWI, they were the masterminds behind the Armenian Genocide, and to this day they still do not help us with anything. The one Middle Eastern characteristic Armenia does not have is that it is not a Muslim country. In fact, Armenia was the first nation in the world to embrace Christianity, however I do not think Religion should play to big of a role in determining whether Armenia should be considered a greater middle eastern nation. The following are some example of how Armenians are culturally and socially closely related to Middle Easterners (excluding Turks).

Eurpean people can go off and live without their parents visiting them perhaps only once a year. Armenians are like Middle Easterners, they have very strong family ties, including close relationships with the extended family: uncles, aunts, and cousins. We also have great respect for our families too. Armenians eat same foods. Music is very similar. Appearances, most Armenians look a lot like Persians, and sometimes Arabs. I mean it will take me a long time to list all the similarities so I am going to sum everything up.

Armenian culture, history, and language, are closely related with Middle Eastern culture, history, and language. This is why I propose that Armenia should be added to the greater middle east section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.221.109 (talk) 06:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

How can you say that Armenians are related to rest of the Middle Easterners but not Turks. There are more similarities between Turkish and Armenian culture than there is between Armenian/Arab culture. This is due to the domination of Ottoman Empire. When you are ruled by someone for over 700years you tend to have a lot in common. Same goes for the Greeks. A lot of Greeks have similarities with Turks also, why not include them in the greater Middle East. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.169.70.10 (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Mittlerer Osten (Middle East) isn´t common at all in German. It´s used by those lazy journalists and authors that also translate "world in a nutshell" literally. 84.173.203.81 16:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "(although nowadays the term "Mittlerer Osten" is more and more common)" is wrong. "Mittlerer Osten" is only used for "Naher Osten" if it is translated wrongly from english sources. Better would be "(sometimes the term "Mittlerer Osten" is used wrongly)" (maybe in better english...) "Mittlerer Osten" does mean the region around the indian sub continent. 84.162.91.116 19:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove my very pertinent links to the article? Do you want me to stop participating in Wikipdia. They were all links very lrevant to thetopic. I add to the Wikipedia and my additions are removed. What about public participation in your articles?--Herut 19:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The Bush Administration created a new concept in 2004 which is the "Great Middle East". I was hoping to find something on the topic in this entry of Wikipedia, but wasn't successful in my search, so I thought that perhaps I should point out that this is an important concept to add here, if not only a reference to it or a link to another entry that explains what it is. Thanks. (201.41.94.169 20:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC))

You're not referring to the Greater Middle East? Funkynusayri 21:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't Kuwait be included in that category ? Yeah...and shouldnt Iraq NOT be included in this category?? Include in in the Levant if you HAVE to categorise it into an area (or by itself as it is done with the Iraqi dialect!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.136.253.166 (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Iraq is NOT part of the Arabian peninsula nor is a part of the Levant, it is usually just reffered to as "Mesopotamia", or it is included in the Mashriq.

Egyptians aren't an ethnic group, anyone apart from our three resident Egyptian nationalists agree? Funkynusayri 22:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Majority in Egypt is actuallt arabs, but some like to call themselves Egyptians. I think the term Egyptian shows what citizenship you have, therefore not an ethnic group.

The offical language of Afghanistan, is not only Pahto, it has two of them which are Persian (Dari) and Pashto. Please correct it, because it is a very sensitive issue in this country. We can not ignore the majority (%50) of the Afghans[17] who speak Persian.78.146.224.247 21:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Afghanistan and Pakistan are not part of the Middle East proper. They are included when talked about the Greater Middle East. Why are they listed as part of the Middle East? They should be removed from the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.122.164.209 (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

(Mr who ever you are i think that you should remove Iran and turkey from the list as well because it is very disrespct for us to call us as a part od middle east because we are strong and cultural countries, we are not arab only few people are arabic speaking in our countries) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.21.156 (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Being in the Middle East has nothing to do with being Arab or not. Turkey and Iran are certainly in the Middle east by any definitions. Funkynusayri (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed some references to Afghanistan and Pakistan in subsections of the article, as they are not listed as being part of the Middle East (nor, IMHO, should they be). I've also removed the map with it's Greater Middle East, which is aomewhat misleading as the SME appears to be a term invented by the Bush Administration rather than anything meaningfull.

Turkey may also be a little questionable - I'll leave that to others. Artw (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is turkey in the middle wast, it should be removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.66.7 (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Ehm, because it is in the Middle east. Funkynusayri (talk) 23:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Turkey is not in the middle east please have it removed. Also if countries like turkey and egypt (north african country) are included then I think that Afghanistan and Pakistan should be included aswell as they would fall under this definition —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.66.7 (talk) 02:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Im turkish...and turkey IS in the middle east! The middle east is a geographical region which does NOT consist of Afghanistan and Pakistan! It is: Egypt Israel/Palestine Syria Lebanon Iraq Saudi Arabia Turkey Iran UAE Kuwait Bahrain Qatar Oman Yemen Jordan

not afghanistan...not pakistan...not india...not ethiopia, somalia or eritrea (as far as geography is concerned thats sub saharan africa)!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.136.253.166 (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Remove it! Zylan (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This article starts with "The Middle East is also the geographic origin of three of the world’s great religions - Christianity, Islam, Judaism." This list is not complete. The Baha'i Faith also originated from the Middle East and should be included in this list, as it is considered one of the Major religious groups. As such, it should be included in this list. —To Serve Man 03:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• You might want to add Zoroastrianism while your at it. Atari400 06:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Bahai Faith had been added months ago so as Zoroastrianism but it has been deleted probably by the same morons who had add pakistan as a middle eastern country or those who don't like to consider these to Iranian rooted religion! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiften1981 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Do we have an article about this new map? Badagnani (talk) 08:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

here? Artw (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it seems similar. But the map in the link I gave above isn't there, and isn't discussed in great detail. It would be great if we could get permission to reproduce that map (or at least link to it). Badagnani (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Iran is not apart of the Middle East. Geography prooves that the ending line of the middle east is the iran-iraq border. This geographic region was, infact, made by the british and the americans during world war I and II since they had troops trying to gain land in those areas. Therefore, IRAN, AFGHANISTAN, PAKISTAN and anything else east of that border is NOT middle eastern and that IS a fact. Middle east is an incorrect term, and the media uses it alot. ALso, middle eastern coutries speak arabic, except for Turkey and Isreal. So please respect the facts, and don't believe what the media says since clearly, they do not respect it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.68.157 (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Moron!!! read before you make crappy comments. What does Iran got to do with Pakistan???? All the Civilization in the middle east has been created by Iran and Egypt, the second biggest country in the middle east, how on earth you compare Pakistan to Iran? Pakistan has been part of India not middle east never and ever —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiften1981 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I see who the real moron is as a third party. They are both states that exists in near or in the mid-Eastern Islamic world (Indonesia is in the Eastern Islamic world). And if you must know, the Muslim conquests at their height reached the region of western Pakistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.18.206 (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Middle East is a geographical term. Iran is part of Middle East. Half of the people in Pakistan are iranians, the baluchies and the pashtuns. The other half of Pakistan is indoaryan like in India, Bangladesh. What they all have in common, Iran, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh is that they are indo europeans.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahatma2008 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

What ??? only ONE FIFTH (1/5) of Pakistanis are "RELATED" to Iranians, stop posting trash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.194.98 (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

PERSIANS ARE NOT MIDDLE EASTERN. WE ARE FROM ARYAN BACKGROUND, WE SPEAK PERSIAN,WE DO NOT BELLY DANCE, WE ARE NOT ARABS-WE COMPLETELY HAVE OUR OWN CULTURE. ORIGINALLY WE ARE ZOROASTRO. TODAY, RELIGION VARIES. AFGAHNISTAN AND PAKISTAN ARE NOT MIDDLE EASTERN EITHER. MOST ARAB SPEAKING COUNTRIES ARE MIDDLE EASTERN: JORDAN, SYRIA, LEBANON, SAUDI. EGPYT IS NORTH AFRICAN. SERIOUSLY GUYS, TAKE A LOOK AT YOUR GRADE 10 HISTORY NOTES ON WORLD WAR 1, YOU'LL SEE THAT THE BRITISH MADE UP THIS REGION AND PERSIA (AT THE TIME) WAS NOT IN THAT REGION DUE TO ITS LANG. CULTURE AND BELIEFS. SO BEFORE YOU POST THINGS YOU CLAM ARE FACTS. PLEASE, RESEARCH AND ASK A REAL PERSIAN, THEY'LL TELL YOU. --76.67.68.157 (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:KUW-coat-of-arms-logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

How come some of the ethnic groups are left out in the list of ethnic groups that live in the Middle East....Greeks have inhabited the Middle East for thousands of years, Georgians have also, as have several others. Of course their numbers might have been reduced they still had and impact and should be included since they still live in these countries . 12.169.70.10 (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Then add them. Funkynusayri (talk) 02:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I see an attempt to push the notion that Egypt is somehow not in Africa, but in the middle east (which is part of Eurasia). This is completely absurd.

There is no ambiguity or geographical separation here.

192.45.72.26 (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Africa is a continent that Egypt is part of. The Middle East is a geographical area that includes Egypt. Just like how some of Turkey's area is part of hte European continent, the country as a whole is considered part of the Middle East. Chaldean (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There are many definitions of the Middle East, as there are many definitions of South Asia, Europe, Ocenia, etc. As editors on Wikipedia, we are obliged to report many of the common definitions provided they are sourced. Stop bickering about Pakistan and please realize that there is no one right view about any situation. And on wikipedia, we report on all views of the definition of the Middle East. Nikkul (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I've brought this up on another talk page a very long time ago, and it was fixed there -but the same map still appears here. The problem with the map is that some cities at least are shown farther north than they actually are - notably, Tel Aviv, Haifa and Beirut. It may apply to more cities, but I can't tell for sure without checking another map. Eilat and Aqaba are also in weird locations. I don't think the transportational aspect is so important to this article - surely the map can be replaced with something from the CIA or a vector map made by a Wikipedian. – Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Come to think of it, the term The Middle East though popular, only suggests what is Middle east for the west! For the countries that lie in the Eastern parts of our little planet, it is actually 'The Middle West'!

Jokes apart, I hope we will able to step beyond this comfortable term, and set out to discover the richness and variety of the land, that we only know now as the Middle East. There was a time when the whole of East was known as the Orient, especially during colonial era, though now with more people travelling to these parts of the world, increasingly the term has been rendered to disuse as people are realising how different and varied, all the individual nations are and how unfair it is, to club them all into a single label, unfair for them and also for us! That brings us to another term, The West and westerners...may we all explore some more...(Ekabhishek (talk) 02:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC))

It is hard to write an article about a geographical location with no certain boundaries. So I've decided that it is time to decide once and for all. Vote for the countries below if you think they should be considered a part of the Middle East:Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia:i

Persian Gulf states (Kuwait, Qatar, U.A.E., Oman, Yemen and Bahrain):i

Iraq:i

Iran:i

Afghanistan:i

Pakistan:i

Jordan:i

Lebanon:i

Syria:i

Palestine

Algeria:

Egypt:i

Libya:

Morocco:

Tunisia:

Turkey:i

Armenia:

Azerbaijan:

Turkmenistan:

Uzbekistan:

Tajikistan:

Kazakhstan:

Kirghistan:

Kyrgyzstan:

Without a definition we can't note any statistics as we don't know which countries to include. Please Vote!!

The Arabic newspaper "Middle East" (الشرق الأوسط ash-Sharq al-Awsaṭ) is meant for Arabic-speaking countries, which broadens the definitions into North Africa. It's far from just a geographical definition but cultural, political and linguistic. I don't mind some other West Asian Muslim countries to be included as in your list. Your list is incomplete. --Atitarev (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

ok I have a suggestion on which countries should be included in the Middle East Article. We should go geographically as to where each country is located. So here is my suggestion as to which countries should be included in this article:

Gulf Countries: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, U.A.E., Oman, Yemen and Bahrain

Persian (Iranian) Plateau: Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan

Levant: Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine.

Turkey and Egypt should also be included.

The north African countries should be taken out as I believe they should have a seperate article on north africa rather then Middle East. These countries are taken from a geographical perpective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.66.7 (talk) 04:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I know that Iran should be in the ME because everyone in Iran say that they are in the Khavare Miane (Middle East). I'm not too sure about Afghanistan and Pakistan though. Turkey and Egypt and the Levant and the Persian Gulf States are in the Middle East.Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 12:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The "Allied Middle East Command" headquartered in Cairo, Egypt, created by the British government in 1939 to organize the war effort in the Middle East is missing. "At first encompassing Egypt, the Sudan, Cyprus, and Transjordan, the command spanned two continents and encompassed an area 1,700 by 2,000 miles (2,735 to 3,218 km). After the beginning of World War II, the command was expanded to include Aden, British Somaliland, and the Persian/Arabian Gulf." (DANIEL E. SPECTOR, basing himself on Barnet, Correlli. The Desert Generals, 2d edition. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1982.) This clearly is an offical use of the term early than the Eisenhower doctrine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.133.8.114 (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Turks are neither Arabs nor Indo-Europeans like Iranians. We derive from Central Asia, our culture is very different, we use Latin alphabet, we are the only secular Muslim country in the world. Considering Middle East only from a geographical aspect is weak. Zylan (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, this is a protected article, and there is clearly a wrong statement ("first offical") and there is something improtant missing ("Allied Middle East Command"). Please do something, or explain, why not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.247.130.54 (talk) 04:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Could someone with access add a note on the total population of the region? (Using the countries currently listed in the article, it's about 336 million). This could be put in demographics, in the opener, or anywhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.100.244.250 (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Either this has been a deliberate attempt at revisionism but

Iran is part of the Traditional definition of the Middle East, ever since this region was given this name by the Britons. It is absolutely ridiculous to put it in a category by the name of "Persian Plateau", since it has absolutely no association with Afghanistan when it comes to the original designation of this region.

The ancient Persian Empire has absolutely nothing to do with this name,

Iran is included in every map that has "Middle East" on it throughout history.

Some facts from Dan Brown's "State of the Middle East, atlas of conflict and resolution"

gay- It is included in "Countries included in the National Geographic Atlas of the Middle East" (excluding Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc.) -It is included in "The Middle East, when speaking of State of the Middle East" (including North africa, excluding Turkey, Pakistan and Afghanistan.) Hello! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.227.100.36 (talk) 11:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It is unimaginable to exclude Iran from the traditional view of Middle East because Iran is shaped to be in it geographically, whoever made this graphic must change it immediately, it looks ridiculous. The fact that it is "Persian" speaking has nothing to do with a geographical designation.

Deleting graphic until corrected. --Paradoxic (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

can someone please put these countries back because they are part of middle east —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugamuto (talk • contribs) 20:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I have put the following countries back as they are included in the Middle East when looked at the majority of World Atlas. Turkeey lies on Anatonlia while Afghanistan and Pakistan lie on the Persian Plateau —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugamuto (talk • contribs) 20:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Provide an academic source (ex: A University's Middle Eastern studies department putting Pakistan as a core part of the ME, not just the Greater ME). Please consult WP:OR. Your reverts are based of original research, not academic authorities. I am reverting your edits and if you keep making them and you do not provide a range of sources, I will continue to revert them. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Most Atlases I've seen generally include Turkey in the Middle East. Pakistan is a different story though. It is more usually considered part of South Asia than the Middle East. --Tsourkpk (talk) 12:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Atlas inclusions of Turkey are ambiguous, it also crops up with Europe. Looking at where academic studies of Turkey occur, one finds quite a bit of variation. Sometimes in Middle East studies (which always include North Africa...) sometimes Central Asia, etc. There is a solid argument for Turkey being mentioned with the caveat that its position is amibiguous. Pakistan seems rather rarer, indeed almost never included with MENA in academic studies - unless the study group is "all islamic world" or the like. collounsbury (talk) 13:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, just because it sometimes crops up in Europe or Central Asia has nothing to do with this article. As long as it appears as part of the Middle East at least some of the time, then it should be included in this article in some form. Whatever the details, I think we can all agree on that there is no argument for systematically removing EVERY mention of Turkey in this article, like some people are doing. --Tsourkpk (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It is rather more than sometimes, most modern MENA studies seem to exclude Turkey. I do agree that systematically removing all reference to Turkey is overdone, but it would seem prudent in mentioning Turkey to note that in modern contexts, Turkey is less often included as part of the Middle EAst / MENA region. (whether right or wrong that seems to be general). collounsbury (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, anything that I did to Turkey was unintentional. My primary intention was to remove Pakistan (whose placement is atrociously misguided).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegreyanomaly (talk • contribs) 18:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)(sorry, I have been uncharacteristically bad at remembering to ~~~~ these days Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC))

No worries, there is clear consensus Pakistan shouldn't be there. collounsbury (talk) 12:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Iran and Turkey are practically always included in the Middle East proper, but North Africa and Pakistan are not, and shouldn't be here. FunkMonk (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

That statement is false on its face. Virtually all Middle East studies cover North Africa, the differentiation between North Africa and the Middle East being something that seems to be growing but is hardly a rule. As for Turkey, that depends on whether one is speaking for historical situations or modern studies. collounsbury (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

North Africa as a whole is part of the "Greater Middle East", rarely of the Middle East in general. FunkMonk (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, certainly that is one approach, in fact the approach I favour. It is not, however, the sole operational definition. collounsbury (talk) 15:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Collounsbury, you raise an interesting point. That being that the very concept changes over time. For instance, there is a growing movement in academia to separate North Africa, minus Egypt perhaps, from the very definition of "Middle East". Turkey and the Caucasus region are another example of such changing movement. They are increasingly seen as literally "European". Interestingly enough, I do expect within the next few decades for Iran to be seen as part of a "Central Asian" definition, more than anything else. This notion has also started, though rather meekly, to gain ground in academia, but the geopolitics of are current world preclude such a notion from growing in the near future. Talk, just for now. Interesting, none the less. The Scythian 09:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

North Africa is greater Middle east, if your putting that there you might aswell put Pakistan, Afghanistan aswell as they are greater middle east —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.65.226 (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Mate, I am an actual real live specialist in the region, I am based in it. I don't need someone telling me Greater Middle East or whatever. Now, as it happens I like the North Africa - Middle East break out and am not arguing for any bloody damned inclusion. But the matter stands that in journalistic and even some academic usage, Middle East has been roughly coterminous with the core Arab lands, MENA if you will. Greater Middle East is a grand new concept. Merely making assertions like this is fucking stupid, the better argument to make is not mere endless assertion, but to say that Middle East as thus defined is clearer, and the older usage should be laid aside. collounsbury (talk) 23:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Arguments like "I'm an expert" are rather futile on Wikipedia, especially because it can't be proven, and because Wikipedia editors are notorious for lying about their credentials. What matters is sources, not our claims. I'm an expert on the Moon, by the way, I'm based in it. FunkMonk (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I have made the article back to normal as we are talking about the entire definition of Middle east in general. That Is why North African countries in the west and Afghanistan and Pakistan in the east are included. This covers the entire Middle east including GME, that is why there are North African Countries. Source: http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/world.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugamuto (talk • contribs) 19:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

That is why we place the countries like this: Middle East Bahrain · Egypt · Gaza Strip · Iraq · Iran · Israel · Jordan · Kuwait · Lebanon · Oman · Qatar · Saudi Arabia · Syria · United Arab Emirates · West Bank · Yemen

Greater Middle East Afghanistan · Algeria · Cyprus · Djibouti · Eritrea · Libya · Morocco · Northern Cyprus1 · Pakistan · Somalia · Sudan · Tunisia · Turkey · Western Sahara (SADR) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugamuto (talk • contribs) 19:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not the article on the GME. If it were than Pakistan would be appropriate.

I have been telling you we need an academic source, but you have produced nothing. Give an academic organization. Like Middle Eastern Studies departments. You have provided me one atlas, emphasis on 1, and I don't even think an atlas counts as an academic source Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

To reiterate. I am uncaring on whether Turkey stays or goes on the page. I just tried to undo anything I may have possibly done to Turkey. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but Pakistan is included in the persian plateau which is an area in Middle East. If you want to remove Afghanistan and Pakistan you might aswell remove all the north african countries. Can you please list a source where North Africa is called "Middle East". Also majority of worldwide international consumer product sites place Pakistan and Afghanistan in Middle East of there sections eg: Sony Ericcson, Hyundai International etc Are you right or are those multi-national corperations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugamuto (talk • contribs) 22:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Corporations are not academic. BBC places Pakistan and Afghanistan in South Asia, but we don't pay attention to that fact. You need academic sources, and you fail to provide them. You don't even provide sources for your corporation data.

Bottom line is, unless you provide academic sources, Pakistan will be kept out. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Pakistan is regarded by some as part of the Middle East, thus should be included in the list of Greater Middle Eastern countries, regardless of whether or not we can find academic sources (though it'd be preferred). Turkey is transcontinental - it is located in Thrace, which is in Europe, and the Anatolian peninsula, which is the westernmost part of Asia and is regarded as part of The Middle East. For the most part, The Airline map is quite accurate in its definition of the Middle East and the countries it encompasses. I don't see how any country besides Egypt or Libya (or possibly Northern Sudan) in northern Africa can be seen as part of the Middle East, as they are not even "east". Greater Middle East, perhaps, but just being part of the Arab community in Africa and Asia doesn't automatically make a country Middle Eastern. I recommend we specify that the "Middle East" is generally regarded as the area south of the Caucasus Mountains, west of the Himalaya, and spans Southwestern Asia and Northeastern Africa - this is the general understanding of the Middle East in the modern world. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan is South Asia and GME, not ME. It is properly included in GME. This is the page for ME not GME. People may often confuse Pakistan as part of the ME, but that does not make it MEern. No academic sources call it MEern. It is fair to comment that it is often mistaken as MEern on the page, but it is not proper to downright say it is and deeply integrate into the page.

Here is an extensive list of academic sources that call Afghanistan and Pakistan South Asian before someone asks. I pulled it straight off of South Asia's sources for Afghanistan and Tibet, so some comments regarding Tibet are still left. ^{[1][2] [3][4][5][6][1][2][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]} Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Nice set of refs. I agree entirely with you regarding Pakistan. Turkey, however, is a different matter. A huge chunk of it is located in the Middle East, therefore should be included, perhaps specifying Anatolia. I stand by my suggestion above - "I recommend we specify that the "Middle East" is generally regarded as the area south of the Caucasus Mountains, west of the Himalaya, and spans Southwestern Asia and Northeastern Africa - this is the general understanding of the Middle East in the modern world." Master&Expert (Talk) 02:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thus far, Afghanistan has not been at issue here. Are you now trying to state that Afghanistan is in fact in South Asia? That raises and entirely different issue than the earlier debate over Pakistan.The Scythian 07:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion on Turkey. Any edits I make to Turkey on the article are unintentional. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed.

What's wrong with the above image? Despite the fact that it isn't Academic, it's quite accurate. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

^I am not trying to raise anything specific to Afghanistan. Afghanistan is the crossroads of ME, CA, and SA so it rightfully belongs on all three articles. I was providing sources for Pakistan as South Asia. I copied all those sources off of the Afg. and Tibet justifications from South Asa, I just failed to clean out the notes pertaining to them that were attached. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Likewise, I am not in favor at all of including Pakistan in the definition of the "Middle East", as it is not. My inclusion of Pakistan(partly), related solely to the geographic spread of the Iranian Plateau, itself extending into parts of modern day Pakistan. That is not a political or cultural reference, but only geographic one, relating to a certain geographic feature. The Scythian 08:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

But it should most definitely be included in Greater Middle East, regardless of whether or not it's considered part of the Middle East or not. It's oftentimes considered as a section of the Middle East and that alone is worth mentioning. Master&Expert (Talk) 08:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion (which I've boldly done), is to split the list of countries into the "Middle East" (with a more narrow, and broadly agreed-upon definition) and the "Greater Middle East".

• From what I've seen in various scholarly sources, the Middle East includes Egypt, but not all of North Africa. A different regional definition that does include North Africa would be the Arab World or "Middle East and North Africa" (MENA). So, I suggest splitting off the rest of Africa into a broader category, Greater Middle East.
• I also don't see Afghanistan as part of the Middle East, but rather part of South Asia. The regional definition, Southwest Asia, is also used sometimes, and that definition does include Afghanistan and Pakistan. I suggest omitting both Pakistan and Afghanistan from the Greater Middle East, or including both. Including one but not the other is odd.
  • I disagree, bigtime. Afghanistan is sometimes lumped into either the Middle East, Central Asia or South Asia. As a result, it must be counted in this article. Afghanistan has most in common, and is closely related to such nations as Iran, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and the NWFP and Baluchistan provinces of Pakistan. Beyond such, any connection is really just conjecture. In other words, how you personally see Afghanistan must comply with both cited sources and majority consensus. The Scythian 08:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    • The article must comply with what most reliable sources are saying, which mostly group Afghanistan (and Pakistan) into South Asia and not the Middle East.^{[2 1][2 2][2 3][2 4][2 5][2 6][2 7][2 8][2 9][2 10][2 11][2 12][2 13][2 14][2 15][2 16][2 17][2 18][2 19][2 20][2 21][2 22][2 23]}. If reliable sources are provided that include Afghanistan and Pakistan in the Middle East, then possibly we can list them as part of the "Greater Middle East". But, I think we have strong consensus among sources that Afghanistan and Pakistan should be considered part of South Asia and not the Middle East. --Aude (talk) 11:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• I would go ahead and include Turkey, as part of the Middle East. I think it's more traditionally been included as part of the Near East, and the Middle East region generally includes what was/is the Near East.

How I've split the table is based on the definition used in Middle East Patterns: Places, Peoples, and Politics. The other thing to do is to improve the subarticle, Regions of the Middle East, which is only a stub. It could go into more detailed discussion of the various terms and regional definitions. --Aude (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I should add that I have the ability to redo any of the maps in this article, which should probably be done anyway so they are in svg format. If we want to revise the "Greater Middle East" map, let's decide what we want. --Aude (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan and Afghanistan are certainly part of the Middle East, which is more of a geopolitical designation than a geographical one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.130.45 (talk) 09:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Greater ME yes, real ME no. No academic sources mark Pakistan as being part of the regular ME, and relatively few sources consider Afghanistan as being part of the regular ME when compared to sources calling Afghanistan as part of South/Central Asia. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

previous info was untrue as the 'greater middle east' refers to Pakistan as a whole not just the part that falls within the iranian/persian plateu, and I do not believe there is any other reocgnised/known definition, hence I have corrected it.

Source:

Ottaway, Marina & Carothers, Thomas, The Greater Middle East Initiative: Off to a False Start, Policy Brief, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 29, Pages 1-7 .

Khokhar (talk) 03:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

We have a climate table - {{Climate in Middle East cities}} - which I made a while ago, during the Wikipedia:Table namespace experiment. I think the table layout/colors needs some adjustment, before using it anywhere. Right now, the table is orphaned and not used. --Aude (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh. I didn't even know we had something like that. Come to think of it, I wasn't even thinking of the climate of the Middle East until you brought it up. And we need a section regarding the climate.

How did you make that? Master&Expert (Talk) 04:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's just a table, like the list of countries tables. But, it's put in a template so the wiki code is separate and can be transcluded into the article. The idea of separating tables was that if newbies come and click "edit", and see messy wiki code like infoboxes and tables, they might not be comfortable or able to figure out how to edit the page. --Aude (talk) 05:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I added it to the article. For now, I think it'll do, at least until we can expand that section. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I REALLY wanted to edit this table, which is what brought me here. Right now, the table tells the "low" and "low" temperatures in July instead of "high" and "low". PLEASE fix this!!! It's locked!!! 129.171.251.141 (talk) 02:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It's fixed now. --Aude (talk) 03:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The table is nice, it makes our Middle East article look better. AdjustShift (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I received the book "A History of Islamic Societies". It should have large amounts of information regarding The Middle East. Looks like it will be a reliable source of references. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

A History of Islamic Societies looks like a good book.[18] AdjustShift (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I no longer have it, unfortunately. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Universally accepted borders of the middle east do not include Turkey. In this article we can mention Turkey being sometimes included in the middle east, but we cannot include it in the traditional borders map since the name first used for the gulf states and was later enlarged to include arab states. Where you can obviously include nations like Turkey, Armenia and Cyprus is the Greater Middle East section. Even only taking the airlines definition of the middle east is enough for that. The universal definition of the middle east goes like this again:

Middle East: Bahrain · Egypt · Gaza Strip · Iraq · Iran · Israel · Jordan · Kuwait · Lebanon · Oman · Qatar · Saudi Arabia · Syria · United Arab Emirates · West Bank · Yemen

Greater Middle East: Afghanistan · Algeria · Cyprus · Djibouti · Eritrea · Libya · Morocco · Northern Cyprus1 · Pakistan · Somalia · Sudan · Tunisia · Turkey · Western Sahara (SADR)

Please somebody remind Tsourkpk about this definition. Elmalili (talk) 18:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

That's just your opinion. You don't provide a single source. Wikipedia works with sources. Please come back when you have some. --Tsourkpk (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You made edits that made it seem that Afghanistan and Pakistan seem like they are within the traditional boundaries Line 482/492 and Line 493/503,[]

Ex.: "The two lowest ranking countries in the Middle East, in terms of per capita income (PPP) are Afghanistan ($1,000) and the autonomous Palestinian Authority of Gaza and the West Bank ($1,100)." Since Afghanistan does not fit the definition of the traditional definition of the ME that is referred to on the page, this sentence was incorrect and fixed, but you still reverted it. You are concerned about Turkey doesn't mean you can trample over valid edits I made. Be consistent in your edits, reverting Afg and Pak edits twice shows that you are inconsistent. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The second word in the Russian translation of Middle East should be "Восток", meaning "East". 71.251.46.136 (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

1- RE: "...Hebrew, Kurdish, Luri, and other Turkic languages, "

Hebrew is not a Turkic language - the phrase is misleading because of poor style. There are several Kurdish dialects as I recall.

2. Curiously, there are a lot more Hebrew and Kurdish speakers in the Middle East than there are speakers of Romanian or Russian, but the article devotes 1 word to Hebrew and another to Kurdish, but several sentences to immigrants and students who happen to speak Russian and Romanian. More people speak English (and French!) in the Middle East than Russian or Romanian, but that is not mentioned. These are not Middle Eastern languages. [[[User:Mewnews|Mewnews]] (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)]

Recently, a newish user has been very insistently trying to remove Turkey from the article. Since i can see this leading to an edit war, I have started a discussion to settle this issue. The way I see it, this is a no-brainer. An image search on google for "Middle East" [19] reveals that every single map of the Middle East generally includes Turkey, and there appears to be a consensus among world atlases on this. Weasel-wording of the kind "Usually considered Middle Eastern" has no place in Wikipedia. --Tsourkpk (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

1. I never removed Turkey from the article. You are lying.

2. That wording is not mine, I took it from "Regions of Middle East" article. If it's left to me, I'd list all those countries as Middle East with a message like "Middle East has a unclear/controversial definition"

3. You are a hypocrite with an obvious agenda. First you were arguing that Anatolia was geographically Middle Eastern, but when confronted about the location of Cyprus you just said "Cyprus is culturally European". Then you realized that's nonsensical and said "Okay, add Cyprus if you want, but don't remove Turkey". I guess you sacrificed Cyprus to keep Turkey in Middle East :D It's clear that you don't have genuine interest in improving this article, you are just pushing your agenda.

4. The thing is, Turkey is sometimes considered in Middle East, and sometimes not. It's the same with Cyprus and Transcaucasian countries. Syria or Isreal, on the other hand, are always considered in Middle East. Thus Turkey is to be lumped together with the former three.--Mttll (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Britannica, one of the most respected encyclopedias in the world and certainly very relevant, says:

the lands around the southern and eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea, extending from Morocco to the Arabian Peninsula and Iran and sometimes beyond. The central part of this general area was formerly called the Near East, a name given to it by some of the first modern Western geographers and historians, who tended to divide the Orient into three regions. Near East applied to the region nearest Europe, extending from the Mediterranean Sea to the Persian Gulf; Middle East, from the Gulf to Southeast Asia; and Far East, those regions facing the Pacific Ocean.

The change in usage began to evolve prior to World War II and tended to be confirmed during that war, when the term Middle East was given to the British military command in Egypt. Thus defined, the Middle East consisted of the states or territories of Turkey, Cyprus, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Palestine (now Israel), Jordan, Egypt, The Sudan, Libya, and the various states of Arabia proper (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, and the Trucial States, or Trucial Oman [now United Arab Emirates]. Subsequent events have tended, in loose usage, to enlarge the number of lands included in the definition. The three North African countries of Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco are closely connected in sentiment and foreign policy with the Arab states. In addition, geographic factors often require statesmen and others to take account of Afghanistan and Pakistan in connection with the affairs of the Middle East.

Occasionally Greece is included in the compass of the Middle East because the Middle Eastern (then Near Eastern) question in its modern form first became apparent when the Greeks rose in rebellion to assert their independence of the Ottoman Empire in 1821 (see Eastern Question). Turkey and Greece, together with the predominantly Arabic-speaking lands around the eastern end of the Mediterranean, were also formerly known as the Levant.

Use of the term Middle East, nonetheless, remains unsettled, and some agencies (notably the United States State Department and certain bodies of the United Nations) still employ the term Near East. See the source.

It's a fairly usual procedure on Wikipedia to take Britannica into account. There are literally thousands of articles on Wikipedia that explicitly use Britannica as a source, it is probably the most common source in all of Wikipedia. Here is a list to the articles sourcing them here.

Mttll, if you believe that Turkey is not always condidered to be located the Middle East, please provide a (reliable, of course) definition of the Middle East that explicitely excludes Turkey.--Olahus (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Olahus, it looks like you have not read properly what you pasted above from Britannica. The first instance of Turkey you highlighted talks about a pre-World War II definition and says "the Middle East consisted of the states or territories of Turkey, Cyprus, etc", consisted is used as a past tense form (which you of course did not highlight), thus cannot be shown as evidence for Britannica defining Turkey in Middle East. It only refers to an old definition. The second instance talks about Greece and Turkey together, and if you read it properly it says occasionally Greece is included in the compass of the Middle East and Turkey and Greece, together with the predominantly Arabic-speaking lands around the eastern end of the Mediterranean, were also formerly known as the Levant from which you only highlighted the word Turkey. This is nothing but ridiculous. You have actually just given an evidence for Turkey being not included in Middle East. How can Wikipedia be neutral by being dominated by people with completely logic-less arguments!

I am not sure what counts as a reliable source, but here is something:

The term MENA, for "Middle East and North Africa", is an acronym often used in academic and business writing. The term generally covers an extensive region, extending from Morocco in northwest Africa to Iran in southwest Asia. It generally includes all the Arab Middle East and North Africa countries, as well as Iran and Israel but not Turkey. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MENA) (I know Wikipedia can't refer to itself, that's not the point, please do not repeat codewords like that.

Worldbank defines a Middle East. It doesn't include Turkey.

[20]

Mttll, as usual you are only providing your opinion. Your opinion, however, is irrelevant here. Wikipedia works on consensus. There is a general consensus among map-makers that Turkey is part of the Middle East. I have provided sources to back my point. You have not. Everything else is irrelevant, especially your opinion and personal attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsourkpk (talk • contribs)

I'm still waiting for an explanation, how can Middle East (based on geography) can include Turkey and exclude Cyprus at the same time.--Mttll (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop trying to confuse the issue by mentioning Cyprus. That is not a valid argument. --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is about Middle East, not Turkey. You focusing on Turkey and ignoring & dismissing everything else tells a lot about your intentions.--Mttll (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

And the international consensus on the Middle East (backed by references) is quite clear: Turkey is part of the Middle East. Don't like it? Deal with it. --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If you check all the major Europeen post services, you will see that they all include Turkey in the Europe list, no Middle East list. Even governments are seeing Turkey as a part of Europe, Turkey has is a member of Europeen Council, is about to become a part of Europeen Union. But you claim that it's in Middle East because your very poor source happened to mention it as a Middle Eastern country? Seriously? Do you think a whole contintent full of goverments are mistaking Turkey as a part of Europe? This is a very basic FACT, doesn't even need any sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.213.228.236 (talk) 18:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the context. That's what I have been telling all along. Turkey (along with others including Cyprus) is sometimes considered in Middle East, sometimes not. Saudi Arabia and Israel are on the other hand is always considered in Middle East. Therefore I say Turkey should be lumped with Cyprus and the others, not Saudia Arabia or Israel.

By the way, this essential definition from your source...

the lands around the southern and eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea, extending from Morocco to the Arabian Peninsula and Iran and sometimes beyond

excludes Turkey because it borders the Mediterranean Sea from the north. It also says Greece had been considered in Middle East, but you haven't addressed that yet oddly enough.

And from the article (did you even read it?):

The first official use of the term "Middle East" by the United States government was in the 1957 Eisenhower Doctrine, which pertained to the Suez Crisis. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles defined the Middle East as "the area lying between and including Libya on the west and Pakistan on the east, Syria and Iraq on the North and the Arabian peninsula to the south, plus the Sudan and Ethiopia."[9] In 1958, the State Department explained that the terms "Near East" and "Middle East" were interchangeable, and defined the region as including only Egypt, Syria, Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar.--Mttll (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Mttll, where do you see a definition of the Middle East in the page of the World bank? MENA is an acronym, not a definition of the terms "Middle East and North Africa". I give you a neutral example: the Afro-Asiatic languages - denotes a language family spoken in Africa and Asia. But those languages are not spoken in entire Asia and also not in entire Africa. According to your thinking, Congo in not an African state and China is not an Asian state. Mttll, I repeat what I already have written above: show me a definition of the Middle East that explicitely excludes Turkey.--Olahus (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is a map from Wikipedia that excludes Turkey and includes Cyprus (vice versa is of course not possible due to geographical realities :D) [21]

By the way, why isn't Tsourkpk being questioned about his inconsistent behavior so far about Cyprus?--Mttll (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Turkey is not Cyprus, so let's ignore Cyprus for a minute. Turkey is practically always considered part of the Middle East, geographically as well as culturally, I've never seen anything which excluded it, unless there was some kind of political/nationalistic agenda behind it. FunkMonk (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I will not forget Cyprus (or any other country which has the slightest association with Middle East) for a minute, this article is about Middle East, not Turkey.--Mttll (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

@Mttll: Do you mean this map? Well, look at the source of the map presented in the file description ([22]). See also the file history. Actually, the map was initially uploaded as the original one [23], but it was later modified by the Turkish user Zaparojdik - he excluded Turkey without any explanation. --Olahus (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The original map[24] seems to include entire Bulgaria (which is odd), Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cyprus. Not quite the argument in favor of Tsourkpk.

There are other maps. Do I have to post every single one of them? [25] [26] (not that I agree with these)

Olahus, do you have something to say about Cyprus and Tsourkpk?--Mttll (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Mttll, where is the text for those maps? What does the maps represent?

Cyprus is located in the Middle East, Encyclopaedia Britannica already confirms this (see my posting above). --Olahus (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It says Middle East in the names of the files. Hey, googleing for Middle East maps was not my idea. And here is another one with a text. [27]

I don't think "Cyprus is located in the Middle East" is 100% correct. The only thing we can say for Middle East is that it's a perception, not a well defined location. Cyprus (and Turkey, Trancaucasia, Maghreb etc) are sometimes included, not sometimes not. Levant and Arabia are, on the other hand, always included.--Mttll (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see a definition, Mttll. The site lonelyplanet includes Turkey in Europe, but does it mea that lonelyplanet is able to define weather Turkey is European or not? We can put Turkey maybe in the category "sometimes not included in the Middle East", by surely not in the category "sometimes included in the Middle East". --Olahus (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have made some changes. What do you think?--Mttll (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've reverted the map back to the original one which included Turkey, it can now be re added. FunkMonk (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course Turkey is part of the Middle East. They ran much of the Middle East as well, but it is not just that which makes it part of the Middle East. The term "Middle East" is fluid, but on the Mediterranean it surely includes Turkey, Egypt and everything in between. The culture of the ME is not intelligible without Turkey. [[[User:Mewnews|Mewnews]] (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)]

Turkey isn't a "traditionaly defined" as a part of Middle-east. It has always been traditionaly defined as 'Anatolia' and sometimes defined as Near East, but not Middle-east. In Turkish culture, Middle-east is considered to be Syria & Iraq and southwards. Not to mention that the most of the western sources have now understood this and are not considering Turkey to be a part of Middle-east. Not to mention that Caucasus isn't in the Middle-east either. It sounds like Middle-east have turned into some sort of map lumping maps with Muslim majorities together. Fix this already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.133.224 (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

As I remember, "Near East" was the term that British used to refer primarily to countries in Europe that used to be part of Turkey such as Bulgaria and Greece - the source of the "Eastern Question." See Michael Oren's book "Power Faith and Fantasy" for an informed discussion of the two terms. They are not quite interchangable [[[User:Mewnews|Mewnews]] (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)]

I was browsing through the wiki when I came across the argument above, and it inspired me to make an account. Perhaps it would be better to use the image provided in this thread I am giving. There appear to be plenty of sources associated Turkey with the middle east, but there are also numerous ones that associate it with Europe too. It would be best to explain this in the article. Panlatdelkwa (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking Arabic or being Muslim does not make something Middle Eastern. If you look at a map you can clearly see the Middle East demarcated from Europe, Asia and Africa by the Black Sea, Caucasus Mountains, Caspian Sea, Iranian Plateau, Persian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, Arabian Sea, Gulf of Aden, Red Sea, Sinai Peninsula, Mediterranean Sea and Aegean Sea. It is almost an island and has more claim to being a seperate continent than Europe or the Indian subcontinent. The Middle East is from the Greek islands in the Aegean to central Iran and from Georgia to the Sinai to Yemen. This is the Middle East —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.39.114 (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The only thing we can agree about Middle East is that it's an ambiguous and controversial concept. Look at your map, it overlaps with national borders. It can't be about geography. Then what's the rationale?--Mttll (talk) 10:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not ambiguous at all, it's very simple. It's a (eurocentric and innacurate) geographic name for the subcontinent you see in this map.

What "subcontinent" ? Why is Eastern Thrace a part of Middle Eastern subcontinent while Western and Northern Thrace are not? What seperates African territories of Egypt from the Maghreb or Sudan? Middle East is certainly not a subcontinent, it's hardly a geographic term.--Mttll (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What subcontinent? The one that is clearly demarcated from Europe, Asia and Africa clockwise by the Caucasus Mountains, Caspian Sea, Iranian Plateau, Persian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, Arabian Sea, Gulf of Aden, Red Sea, Sinai Peninsula, Mediterranean Sea, Aegean Sea and Black Sea. It lies mostly (though not wholly) on it's own tectonic plate and has as much claim to being a continent as Europe has or being a subcontinent as the Indian subcontinent has.

That map is showing countries with some or all territory in the Middle East, in the case of Turkey, Eastern Thrace is European Turkey and therefore not Middle Eastern. Not sure what your point about Africa is. If this area I've described is not known under the name Middle East, then somebody tell me the name of this distinct area. 90.193.39.114 (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to add to my point, Greece, Turkey, Egypt, Iran and Azerbaijan are the countries that are not wholly Middle Eastern, In the case of Greece, only the Eastern Aegean islands are Middle Eastern, Like Rhodes. In the case of Turkey, Eastern Thrace is not Middle Eastern, In the case of Egypt, only Sinai is Middle Eastern, In the case of Iran, only western Iran is Middle Eastern, In the case of Azerbaijan, only the parts in South Caucasus are Middle Eastern. 90.193.39.114 (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason for the confusion is too many people are ignorant or unlearned in geography and add language, religion and culture into the equation. 90.193.39.114 (talk) 13:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the results of a search such as this one [28] are sufficient grounds for moving Turkey from the "sometimes considered Middle Eastern" category to the "usually considered Middle Eastern" category, as virtually every map of the modern Middle East includes Turkey in it. I would be interested in opening a discussion on the subject so as to reach some sort of consensus on the matter. --Athenean (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you see my edit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Middle_East&oldid=262965159

Do you disagree with it?--Mttll (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be easier if you showed me the diff. --Athenean (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Why can't you accept that Turkey's case is more similar (mostly due to being transcontinental) to Cyprus and Trancaucasia than to the Levant, Iran or Arabian peninsula? I don't understand. --Mttll (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, we know where you stand. Now let's see what other people think. BTW, it would be best if you didn't make this personal. This isn't about what you or I think, but the community as a whole. From the search I have provided, it seems to me that most map-makers include Turkey in the Middle East.--Athenean (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

CIA World Factbook includes Cyprus in Middle East too. Any particular reason why you didn't mention it?--Mttll (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This thread is about Turkey. You can start another one about Cyprus if you like. --Athenean (talk)

I say that Turkey's position is a unique one. Wikipedia is not here to impose its own POV, but to represent both sides. Turkey is sometimes considered Middle Eastern, Turkic, or European. 78.151.106.116 (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Turkey is always considered Turkic which is what it is. But you are right about being considered European. Like Cyprus and Trancaucasia (more so than Cyprus and Trancaucasia actually in terms of geography and other things), Turkey is considered European in many (if not most) context.

If you had to draw a Middle East map on a blank world map; Turkey, Cyprus, Caucasus may or may not be included. However if you draw a world map where regions like Europe and Middle East coexist; Turkey, Cyprus, Caucasus are more likely to be included in Europe.--Mttll (talk) 11:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Where do you come up with this stuff? Last time I did an image search on Google for "Middle East", virtually every single map included Turkey and Cyprus, and about half included transcaucasia. However, when I did the same for Europe, about half of the maps did not include Turkey. Try it, it's not that hard, although you might not like what you see. --Athenean (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say they are more likely to be, but depending on which criteria you use to decide, they end up under different areas. Economically and Politically, Turkey and Cyprus are European. Geographically, Cyprus is non-European and Turkey is part European - although since there is no tectonic plate dividing Europe and Asia, these lines are based on nothing more than historical arbitrary groupings - hence Russia is divided in two by the line. Religiously, Cyprus is European, and Turkey is Middle Eastern. Linguistically, as they both use Indo-European languages, they are Eurasian, while they both use European alphabets. 78.149.144.56 (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Politically and economically, Cyprus is a member of the EU and Turkey is not, and it doesn't look like it's going to join any time soon, if at all. --Athenean (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Process of being a member of the EU doesn't turn a non-European country into a European country. The EU (no doubt the most important authority to decide what's Europe or not) has always considered Turkey European. If it didn't, Turkey wouldn't be eligible for membership. The same thing is valid for Council of Europe and whatnot.--Mttll (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

How interesting. I would reply that the process of being eligible for EU membership doesn't make a non-European country suddenly into a European one. More importantly, MOST Europeans do not consider Turkey European, which is the main reason there is so much opposition to Turkey joining the EU in countries such as France (75% against) and Austria, to name but a few. --Athenean (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you playing dumb? You're doing a pretty good job if so.--Mttll (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Norway is not in the EU but is politically European. I'm not sure if you keep up with the news, but several chapters in the Turkey-EU progression have now been completed - it's not a matter of if it joins - it's when. Also, the French Government has explicitly stated that it is not going to use the Mediterranean union as a replacement for Turkish membership in the EU. 78.149.144.56 (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where you've been the last few years, but last time I checked, Turkey's application to join the EU has been frozen indefinitely, due to its refusal to recognize the Republic of Cyprus, a member of the EU. If I were you, I wouldn't hold my breath. --Athenean (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, Turkey being in the EU or not does not matter. The point is Turkey is an eligible member which means it's considered European by the EU. Similarly Council of Europe and many other organizations consider Turkey European. You're just wasting your time. Being eligible for membership isn't a process btw, you either are eligible or not; Turkey is, and hence European to the EU.

Anyway, this article is about Middle East and this thread about Turkey, not Europe. I only mentioned Europe to provide a perspective which lumps Turkey with Cyprus, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia as opposed to Yemen or Iraq etc.--Mttll (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Athenean I'm not sure what your POV goal is here, but Turkey's application has certainly not been frozen indefinitely - it is indeed true that 10 chapters have been closed due to the Cyprus problem, but others have been up and running. Nonetheless, Turkey is politically European. It is secular, democratic, and to all extents and purposes, a mixed economy. Like I said above, different criteria render Turkey and Cyprus under different regions, but neither is strictly "European" or "Middle Eastern". 78.146.79.227 (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

What on Earth does being "secular" and "democratic" have to do with being European (let alone the "mixed economy" nonsense)? It's as if you're saying that the Middle East is inherently anti-democratic and theocratic, and therefore "bad" and Europe is "good". Thus, associating Turkey with the Middle East makes it look "bad" and associating it with Europe makes it look "good". This is classic Kemalist POV (not mention a bit racist) and I will have none of it. Other countries in the region are also democratic and secular (Palestine, Isreal) but are not considered European. And what does "politically European" mean? Please explain because that doesn't make any sense. I base my position on several things: Virtually every map of the Middle East found on Google images includes Turkey, but 2/3 of the maps of Europe do not. See for yourself if you don't believe me. Second, a majority of Europeans (59%) does not consider Turkey European and opposes its membership in the EU on those grounds, while only 28% support it. And it is no coincidence that the Cyprus issue is such a huge barrier to Turkey's membership. It stems directly from the fact that in Turkey, the army has control over foreign policy and defense issues, which is completely at odds with European values. --Athenean (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No one said anything about the Middle East being bad, only you came up with that. The fact of the matter is that Turkey is hard to classify, and this needs to be reflected, as it is neither stricly Middle Eastern or European. Panlatdelkwa (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The IP seems to be implying that because Turkey is secular and "democratic", that's enough to make it European. That's the problem I have. The point here is that even if Turkey is partially Middle Eastern, that is sufficient grounds for including it in this article, regardless of how "European" some people seem to think it is. --Athenean (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all, you open a new thread, but we haven't reached a conclusion yet. There is nobody with a third opinion who agrees with you. Do you wish another edit war? Why?

Second of all, I agree democracy and secularism have nothing (or very little) to do with this.

1. Athenean, I'm not trying to disassociate Turkey with Middle East. I'm not trying to remove it from the article as you initially claimed. I'm just arguing Turkey is to be lumped together with Cyprus which is sometimes considered Middle East and sometimes not, like Turkey, instead of Iraq or Lebanon which are always considered Middle Eastern.

You talk about the maps of Middle East, but you don't adress the issue of Cyprus yet. How can a Middle East map include Turkey and exclude Cyprus at the same time? Bizarre. This also tells a lot about your intentions.

2. As for the maps of Europe which doesn't include Turkey... Those maps must be about geography. Cyprus has no territory in Europe. Russia has most of its territory in Asia. Yet both are considered European states by the EU, Council of Europe and many other organizations. The same thing goes for Turkey. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Anyway, I believe I defeated you before about this matter. Can you please explain this?

You: Since when is Anatolia part of Europe?

Me: It's not, but neither is Cyprus or Armenia.)

You: Cyprus and Armenia are usually considered European, Turkey is not.

Me: EU (indisputably biggest authority to decide what Europe is) considers all three countries European. Geographically, unlike Turkey, Cyprus and Armenia have NO territory in Europe."

I am not saying that "Turkey is not Middle Eastern because it's European", a country can be considered both Middle Eastern and European. But you see, the very term, Middle East, is a European perception. Turkey is considered a European state by most institutions, but what about Middle East? What's the authority for it? The maps in Google? Yeah, if you ignore the ones which exclude Turkey, all of them includes Turkey. Great. --Attlmt (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

For me, the authority for what's middle east and what isn't is the community of geographers and map-makers. Almost every single map of the ME that you look up either on-line or off-line include Turkey. Why? Because, geographically speaking, Anatolia is considered part of the ME. Not sometimes, but nearly always. For me, that is sufficient grounds for moving Turkey from the "sometimes" to the "usually" category. That's all. As for Cyprus, thI guess you have a point. Most maps include in the ME as well. So, if we're going to keep this argument strictly geography-based, then we should also move it from the "sometimes" to the "usually" category. Transcaucasia is yet another matter. Only about half the maps of the ME include it, so it should stay in the "sometimes" category. Is that cceptable to you? BTW, if you're having trouble with your old account, you should seek help from an administrator. Starting a new account is not the best idea, it could get you in trouble. --Athenean (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Mttl (Attlmt) did not say we should move it to that category. Stop POV-pushing. The community has had enough. Panlatdelkwa (talk) 09:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Who do you think you are to be talking on behalf of the "community"? The agreement between Mttll and myself is evident from the fact the I added Turkey and Cyprus to "usually considered ME", and he did not object. This is agreement by WP:SILENCE. He was satisfied with my edits, and saw no need for further discussion, since the matter was settled. And now here you come along claiming to speak on behalf of the community. You have been warned twice now. Further disruption will be reported. --Athenean (talk) 09:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Silence? He hasn't had time to revert yet. And more to the point I reverted. Look at what he said above: "I'm just arguing Turkey is to be lumped together with Cyprus which is sometimes considered Middle East and sometimes not, like Turkey, instead of Iraq or Lebanon which are always considered Middle Eastern." - he clearly disagrees with you. Also, you talk of my arrogance, but I have never come across someone on wikipedia with such an attitude as you, "who do you think you are" - yes, indeed, who do you think you are? Panlatdelkwa (talk) 09:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"He hasn't had time to revert yet"? Really? Then what about all these edits, right after mine: [29], [30], [31], [32]. You will of course notice he reverted to my version. So he had plenty of time to revert, yet he didn't, so clearly you are lying. --Athenean (talk) 10:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

He has not commented on this talk page yet, meaning he has possibly not seen your edit. Besides, neither of us has the right to put words into his mouth. Only he can do that, and he clearly said "Turkey is... sometimes considered Middle East and sometimes not". We shall await his further comments. Also, I suggest a heavy read of WP:NPA and WP:CIV - I am being completely honest when I say you're among the rudest editors I have ever come across. Panlatdelkwa (talk) 10:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

How can he have not seen my edit, when he edited right after me? [33]. Stop playing dumb. Users Scythian77 and Thegreyanomaly also reverted to my version. You are clearly going against the established consensus. --Athenean (talk) 10:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Er yes, which was a revert of you? I've had enough of this. If I see another revert without further discussion, I can assure you I will be bringing this to the attention of others. Discussion closed. Also, don't remove my comments. Firstly it is far from an attack, and secondly, if I removed all the things from your speech which were attacks there would be little left to salvage. Panlatdelkwa (talk) 10:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Er no, it wasn't a revert of me. Once again you are lying. Also, calling a user "the rudest editor I have come across" is a clear personal attack, while I say no such things. --Athenean (talk) 10:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Calling me a liar, calling me arrogant, asking me who I think I am - all in gross violation of the policies. As I said, this thread is done. Panlatdelkwa (talk) 10:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You are lying when you claim that Mttll "hasn't had time to revert yet", and that his edit "was a revert of you". That is not the case, and you know better. So no, it's not a personal attack when it's true. If Mttll disagreed with my edits, he would have undone them, which he had plenty of time to do, yet he didn't. Two other editors, Scythian77 and Thegreyanomaly also did not undo my edits. Only you have, claiming to represent the community. And asking someone who he thinks he is not a personal attack. And what is "this thread is done" if not arrogant? --Athenean (talk) 10:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

His very next edit removed the title "usually middle eastern" which in effect reverted your placement of Turkey into the category anyway. Also, you called me arrogant simply for reverting you - after that initial comment, do you really expect me to have any respect for you? Panlatdelkwa (talk) 10:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

But he did NOT remove Turkey from the table of "Regions and Territories". You did! All Mttll did was to change the heading, but he kept Turkey in the Middle East. That's the whole point. And then you come along, with this little gem "Stop POV-pushing. The community has had enough." How can you expect any respect after this? With what authority do you claim to represent the "community". I don't see "community spokesperson anywhere on your page. --Athenean (talk) 10:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

And I did not remove it either. If you really wished to move on, you would have apologized for the name calling - but the fact you think you're in the right for it highlights what you're really here for. Panlatdelkwa (talk) 10:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes you did! You removed Turkey and Cyprus from "Territories and regions" to "Greater Middle East", when in fact every map of the ME you look at includes both these countries. Mttll left Turkey and Cyprus in Middle East, and you removed them to Greater ME! Once again you are lying. And what am I "really here for"? Care to explain? --Athenean (talk) 11:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I refuse to discuss this with you anymore. The AN case highlights I'm not the one that's the liar, and I await the administrators' outcome. Panlatdelkwa (talk) 11:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Your refusal comes naturally, since you have no more arguments, and are now left only with innuendos such as the one above about "what I'm really here for". Based on the fact that every map of the ME on-line and off-line includes Turkey and Cyprus, I will be moving these countries from the "Greater Middle East" to the "Usually considered Middle East, as Mttll and I agreed upon last night. Refusing to dicuss is your problem, not mine. But be aware that undoing others edits without discussion is considered disruptive behavior and will be dealt with as such. --Athenean (talk) 11:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No, my refusal comes from the fact that I'm not going to endure two discussions with you. I will continue with the one at the AN, where administrators can intervene. I will also be reverting you if you do as such. Panlatdelkwa (talk) 11:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

So you have now clearly stated that you intend to start an edit-war, by reverting without discussion. Every single map of the ME includes Turkey and Cyprus. That is the consensus among map-makers. The article must reflect this per WP:CONSENSUS. Further disruption will be reported. --Athenean (talk) 11:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Had the Middle East watchlisted and noticed everyone's arguing over whether or not Turkey is itself Middle Eastern. I thought it would be good if I offered up a third opinion.

Turkey, being located in both Europe and Asia, has had strong cultural and historical connections with both continents. They are a Turkic peoples, which makes them Asian by heritage and language. Religion-wise, the Turkish people are almost entirely Muslim, most of whom are devout. That said, Turkey is a secular state, which further integrates it into the west. Anatolia (Asian Turkey) is historically, culturally, and geographically considered to be a part of the Middle East, which is the region header Turkey falls under in the "Middle East" section.

One could make the argument that Turkey is located very near the Middle East (as opposed to being part of it) and is culturally integrated with the Western World, especially considering its claim to a portion of the Balkans. Regardless, it has generally been called a significant presence in the Middle East, and geographically Anatolia is accepted as part of the Near East, which is usually thrown into the definition of the Middle East along with the Levant, the Arabian Peninsula, Egypt, and Mesopotamia (as a general consensus inclusion in the Middle East).

I propose including it into the main Middle East section, under the heading "Anatolia" as it already is. However, we should also include a footnote that mentions the country's connection with Europe as well. It is important that the reader knows that Turkey is itself transcontinental, and while a significant portion of it is located in The Middle East, another portion is in Europe, and it has had strong cultural and historical influences in the area.

Thoughts? Master&Expert (Talk) 23:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Went ahead and changed it. It you disagree with the change, please say so and we can discuss it here. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you people explain what you think about the relation between these terms. Judging from your comments about Turkey and Cyprus, I suspect some of you consider them identical. In that case, the case of Transcaucasus and Egypt should be very different. --Mttll (talk) 13:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

"West Asia" and "Middle East" are generally regarded as the same idea, except the general definition of the Middle East also extends to portions of North Africa. The Middle East does not have a unanimous consensus on what its cultural and geographic boundaries are, it's just a general idea. The Anatolian portion of Turkey is geographically fixated next to the other regions of the Middle East, and generally Anatolia is considered to be part of the Middle East definition (sans the European part of Turkey). Cyprus is close enough to the other regions to include it in the main definition, but it has strong cultural connections to Europe. That's the reason I made the footnotes in the main list - to clarify for the reader how the two countries have a connection to Europe. Egypt should be included in the Middle East's main list of countries, considering its strong cultural, historical, and geographic connection to the general area. The Transcaucasus countries are very close to the region, but are not usually considered to be part of the Middle East. They should be in the Greater Middle East. Master&Expert (Talk) 18:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The 'Middle East' is a (vague and eurocentric) geographic term and therefore I stress that geography is the only relevant criteria. When laypeople throw language, religion, ethnicity, culture and everything else into the equation it makes a mess and causes more confusion. Don't people understand it is basically describing the subcontinent that is seperated from Europe, Asia and Africa by the Black Sea, Caspian sea, Persian gulf, Red sea and Mediterranean sea, being almost a small continent thus a subcontinent and is clearly discernable on the map. Regarding Transcaucasia, It lies south of the Caucasus mountains and therefore is outside Europe. With regards to Egypt, the Sinai peninsula is the only part within the Middle East, The people residing west of the Sinai peninsula in the Nile delta have much in common with the Middle East but this has no bearing on a geographic term. The same is true for the Christians in Transcaucasia. Most of the countries in the Middle East are not homogenous anyway so it makes no sense to apply arbitrary factors into the definition of a simple geographic term. Kurds may not care much for Anatolian Turks but they are geographically both Middle Eastern likewise Arabs may not care much for Israeli Jews but they are both geographically Middle Eastern and so on. You can't apply the superficial arbritraryness to the Middle East that went into the concept of Europe, it doesn't work. Outside of a geographic context the term is useless because the term doesn't apply in any other context. It is not describing the Islamic world, it is not describing the Arab world, it simply describes the westernmost subcontinent of Asia lying directly south of Eastern Europe. I think the media holds most of the blame for the use and misuse of this adopted exonym. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. The Middle East is a very vague and disputable term. It is not our job to define the Middle East - it is our job to present other definitions from a neutral perspective. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It is our job to present accurate information not to perpetuate myths or confused concepts. If a particular term is poorly understood or misused in the media or political realm, it's no reason to jettison logic. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering what everyone thought of Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan being included somewhere in the "Greater Middle East" section. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• The Central Asian Republics are generally lumped in with the various conceptions of a "greater Middle East". I certainly believe they should at least be given mention in this regard. The Scythian 04:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well you have pertinently placed your finger on the truth of the matter here Master&Expert. This region known as Central Asia is actually, from a eurocentric geographic perspective, the true Middle East, with the Far East lying to directly to it's east and the Near East lying directly to it's west. Thus the region known as the Middle East, is actually rather the Near East, but perhaps because the numerically dominant religion of the Near East is Islam, and the numerically dominant ethnic group Arabs, European and American media and politics would prefer not to apply the prefix 'Near' to the region as rather more impartial archaeologists, geographers, and historians do. To make a seperate point, as all of the so called Middle East (Southwest Asia) lies directly south of Eastern Europe, a better description for the region would be Near South, since it's position relative to Europe is Southern. Moreover, from a non-eurocentric perspective this region has less geological integrity with Asia than Europe and deserves it's own continental designation. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that this article will always be controversial (the very term itself is controversial as mentioned in the very article) and that it's very hard to reach a consensus about it. So I have a major proposal:

Why don't we move the most of the content in this article to Western/Central/Southern Asia and North Africa articles? I mean what's the point of listing "Middle East countries" and arguing which ones should be included when there is no such a thing like a self-defined "Middle Eastern" organization (as opposed to the EU, African Union or whatever)

This article can be used just for the term, rather than what the term stand for.

For example:

These parts can stay: 1 Etymology - 1.1 Criticism and usage - 1.2 Translations

I am not sure about these ones: 2 Territories and regions - 2.1 Greater Middle East

These parts would be moved: 3 History - 4 Geography - 4.1 Climate - 4.2 Topography - 4.3 Geology - 4.4 Water resources - 5 Demographics - 5.1 Ethnic groups - 5.2 Religions - 5.3 Languages - 6 Economy

So what do you think? -- Mttll (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a fantastic idea. It's exactly what this article should contain, based on what you've said above. The whole idea of having several lists makes no sense, and it's a very controversial topic. I support this. --timsdad ^(talk) 04:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Any more ideas? This would be a major change, I need more opinions. -- Mttll (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there anyone who have objections to my proposal? Or anymore supporters? Any opinion at all? I don't want to engage in an edit war. -- Mttll (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

An interesting proposal, however I rather doubt it would be stable - six months to a year down the road I suspect much would be added back in. NEvetheless, give it a shot. (collounsbury (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC))

It can be stable if we reach a consensus before the change, I think. -- Mttll (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well you've got two supports... Maybe just wait for a week or so to see if we get any more comments. It is a major change, we can't just jump straight into this. --timsdad ^(talk) 23:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems the term, Middle East, is used in many articles. I renamed "Ethnic groups in Middle East" as "Ethnic groups in West Asia" since it was obviously incorrect, being listed under Asia in "Ethnicity" template and including N. African people at the same time. I'll need more feedback about this proposal and if it's going to be changed, I'll need help. -- Mttll (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The lack of feedback is disturbing. Anyway, I think the article, "Near East", is similar to my proposal. The term "Middle East" within Wikipedia templates will also be removed one by one and replaced with far more non-controversial terms like West Asia, North Africa etc. -- Mttll (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I proposed to merge Near East and Greater Middle East articles into this one. There will be one Middle East article which deals with these terms only, not geography, history, demographics etc of a controversial and ambiguous place. -- Mttll (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

But...They are different concepts. The Scythian 04:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, nice to see you here. What do you think about my proposal in general? -- Mttll (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems my deletion proposal of "list of countries in middle east" article was accepted. Now it's the time to remove this controversial list. These countries do not identify with each other, there is no reason to list them like this just as there is no need to list countries that border the Atlantic. -- Mttll (talk) 08:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Look at this:

The Middle East is home to numerous ethnic groups, including Arabs, Turks, Persians, Jews, Kurds, Aramean Syriacs, Azeris, Circassians, Berbers, Somalis, Greeks, Samaritans, Turkmens, Pashtuns, Baluch, Habesha(mainly Eritrean habesha), and Nubians.

What a random list. This alone proves that Middle East is a biased, Eurocentric term which lumps geographically unrelated people together with no basis. I'm deleting this list. I'll soon carry out the rest of proposal if I receive no feedback. I'll consider your silence as approval. -- Mttll (talk) 08:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

From the article:

"The Middle East defines a geographical area, but does not have precisely defined borders."

Yes, and that's why I'm going to delete geography section. The associated parts can be moved to Asia, West Asia, South Asia, Central Asia and Africa, North Africa articles. These terms are not 100% precise either, but much less controversial than Middle East for various reasons. -- Mttll (talk) 08:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're getting a bit ahead of yourself. Certainly this article needs improvement, and I agree that some specific information should be moved to the more appropriate geographic terms (Southwest Asia, etc.). That said, Middle East is the main English-language term used by politicians, the media, and ordinary people to refer to this region of the world, so even if your own opinion is that it is a "Eurocentric term which lumps geographically unrelated people together with no basis", it is by no means some random thing that can be easily ignored. Likewise, Near East is not the exact same thing as the Middle East, and considering its frequent usage for well over a hundred years, it passes notability and deserves its own separate article. As for "Greater Middle East", it garners hundreds of hits on Google Books and Google Scholar, and we already have articles like Greater Syria and Greater Israel. Joshdboz (talk) 08:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but you see, you talk as if I proposed to delete the article. That's not what I did. Like I initially said, I just to want to transform it. It will focus on the term itself, not what it stands for. I mean, Wikipedia will of course have an article on Middle East. But should it be used categorically? It's a very controversial term, after all. Wouldn't it be a violation of neutrality? First of all, do you agree with me generally speaking? If so, can you help me? -- Mttll (talk) 09:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Come to think of it, it seems you are right. There is no need to merge those articles at all. Thank you for the feedback. -- Mttll (talk) 11:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• It is hardly "very controversial", apart from for maybe Turkish nationalists. Don't delete everything. FunkMonk (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Be aware that the Near East and the Middle East are not synonyms and shouldn't be merged. The Near East refers to Anatolia, the Fertile Crescent and the Caucasus (and sometimes Iran) only, while the Middle East is a nonsense term that can mean anywhere from Mauritania to Xinjiang, an area with nothing in common except 'contiguous Islamdom'. The term basically denotes 'contiguous Islamdom'. I support your proposal to transfer sections of this article to the relevant continental subregion articles, like Southwest Asia etc. The Greater Middle East article is worthy of deletion. Izzedine (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don’t understand why all of the nations from the Middle East have been deleted. I worked hard to put as much as data as I could find and research the nations of the Middle East. I see that you say that there are no official boundaries of the Middle East but why can’t we put the countries that we know are in the Middle East? Why was all this deleted? If the area of the Middle East is up to interpretation and there are no known countries in the Middle East than anyone can agree on than you will have to delete this entire article because they talk about areas that may or may not be in the Middle East. Instead of deleting this entire article because nobody seems to agree about any of the countries in the Middle East I suggest we put it back to the way it was. I will Revert the current edit and if anyone has a problem use the talk page. The point I am trying to make is that I understand some countries that belong to the Middle East may be controversial or disputed but there are at least some countries that people no without a doubt to belong to the Middle East. If you disagree and think there is not one single country that can be said to belong to the Middle East, and you think that mentioning any country in the article is controversial or up to debate then we shouldn’t even have this article in the first place, because you can’t have an article about the Middle East if you cannot even agree on one country that belongs in the Middle East. If do not think that you can officially put even one country in the Middle East then the entire article has no relevance because the territory is undefined. You must atleast put a list of some of the countries that make up the territory of the Middle East because if not even one country in the Middle East can be identified than the entire area of the Middle East is up to interpretation, and the article becomes completely irrelevant because without a list of any of the countries that belong to the Middle East, nobody has any idea where the Middle East is. I hope I am making sense. Let me know what you agree on. Thank you for your time.Ceres987 (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• A lot more info was removed too, which should not be removed without proper consensus. Don't delete anything until then. FunkMonk (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ceres987, why are you acting like a revert warrior? Your revert includes successfully deleted and renamed articles. I advise you to watch what you are doing.

Yes, Middle East is a controversial word. Why? Just look at it. The east of what exactly? Europe? How is Morocco east of Europe? Middle East is controversial for the same reason "the West" concept is.

Look at the "Western world" article. [34] It totally focuses on the term itself, as it's controversial.

Anyway, you talk as if I deleted the article or removed content. I did not. The names of countries are mentioned in every part of the article. I just removed the list among other things and moved it to Western Asia article as I explained throughly.

Now, I'll make changes one by one. DON'T MASS REVERT, WRITE YOUR PARTICULAR ARGUMENTS. --Mttll (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC) Get some support for each specific change on the talk page before making them. FunkMonk (talk) 08:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia are "traditionally" considered parts of the middle east, usually more often than Turkey. I've always seen counters to this arguments saying that these countries are culturally "closer" to Europeans (which is usually unsourced or poorly sourced). Aside from religion (except in the case of Azerbaijan), can someone explain what it is that makes the countries of the caucasus part of Europe rather than Asia. I always thought Armenia (not sure about Georgia though) had lots of influence from the so-called "middle east" because of all the Armenians scattered across the region. Either way, being culturally close to a continent does not mean you are part of the continent; the United States and canada are parts of the Americas even though they are racially, culturally, and economically different from the rest of the Americas. On the contrary, Americans are racially, culturally, and economically close to Europe but still not considered as such.Parthian Scribe 04:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

[sarcasm] Sorry, Athenean gave his verdict on this one. Armenia and Cyprus are culturally European, Turkey isn't. The maps in Google prove this too, but you need to see what serves your argument and ignore the rest.[/sarcasm]

Joking aside, you're right. Middle East doesn't have a traditional definition, the only thing we've is a weasel worded map. The very article disagrees with that position. And Caucasus is located at directly east of Anatolia, and in Western Asia. --Mttll (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Transcaucasian culture is 'European'? I certainly dispute this idea, as a whole, Caucasian culture is distinctly homogenous, but when compared with neighbouring regions, shares a greater cultural affinity with Western Asian countries such as Iran and Turkey.

Christianity is native to Western Asia and the millions of Lebanese, Iraqi, Georgian, Armenian and Cypriot Christians are not "Culturally European" it's the other way round. I would describe Europe as culturally Mediterranean, as it inherited everything from the Spanish, Italians, Greeks, Egyptians, Lebanese and Iraqis. Izzedine (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The table removed by user Mttll is useful and infromative, and has been in the article for months. He removed it after duplicating its contents in West Asia article. As far as I can see, that is irrelevant and moreover is not a valid rationale for removing something useful to te readers of this article. --Athenean (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see the point in listing statistics for Armenia, Tajikistan, Somalia etc. I find the table irrelevant, inconvenient and unapplicable. What do these countries have to do with each other than other being perceived as Middle Eastern or Greater Middle Eastern by whosoever? I say let's move them to West/South/Central Asia and North Africa articles. It makes much more sense. -- Mttll (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how a table listing the main statistics of Middle Eastern states is "irrelevant", "inconveneint" or "unapplicable" in any way. I for one, find it useful and informative. It gives an overview and comparison of the main states of the Middle East, which I think would be of interest to readers of this article. The table has been there for ages, and up until now, no one has objected to it. You really seem to hate this article and only recently pretty much tried to remove almost all the content. I cannot agree with this approach. --Athenean (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not move it to West/Central/South Asia and North Africa articles? What's your argument? -- Mttll (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Because it is useful and makes this article better. "Why not move it" is not an argument. I don't see any reason why we can't have it in BOTH Middle East AND West/Central/South Asia and North Africa. Come on, just leave it, it's not that bad , is it? I can't understand why you mind it so much. Tell me, what is the real reason you want to remove it so badly?--Athenean (talk) 10:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

How is it useful and make this article better exactly? Under what context, these countries are related? --Mttll (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's see, in the onctext that they are all part of the Middle East, duh?--Athenean (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

That's what I am asking, these datas, how are they relevant? Tell me a single organization that uses Middle East as presented here. --Mttll (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

What 3 people? What are you talking about? You don't have "support" from anyone for your mass deletions. Such mass removals without consensus border on vandalism. The Middle East is a geographic region, and as such a "Geography" is fully warranted. It seems to me you have a problem with the very term "Middle East" in general, and it if it were up to you, this article would be a one-liner. --Athenean (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

timsdad, collounsbury, and concerning geography, Joshdboz. Middle East doesn't describe a well-defined geographic region compared to North Africa, West Asia etc. What's the reason behind your constant objection? --Mttll (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Joshdboz actually disagreed with you, and FunkMonk told you not to "delete everything", and that it's only "Very controversial" for Turkish nationalists, and I have to agree with him. So only two users, and at least another 2 (me and FunkMonk) that disagree with you. Hardly a consensus for such massive changes. Anyway, it is pretty clear that you do not have a sufficient consensus for such major changes. Clearly a more thoruough discussion is warranted before such changes can be enacted. The Middle East is a geographical term, and as such a "geography" section makes perfect sense. I can't understand your objections. It seems to me you just really hate the very term Middle East, and if you could have your way, you would delete this article altogether. --Athenean (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Joshdboz agreed on moving geography section. FunkMonk said "don't delete everything" which is irrelevant since that's not what I am doing. Also, you assume too much, talk about the matter at hand, not me, if you care

As for the term, Middle East.. Yes, it's controversial. No, I don't want to delete the article. How should I tell it? I just don't want it to be integral to Wikipedia categories/templates. If you bother to read the article, many critics advocate the same; United Nations replaced it with Western Asia. --Mttll (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Mttll has my full support for removing the table and transferring the bulk of the content to the respective continental subregion articles. I don't understand why you're opposed to it Athenean, his argument makes good sense.

Mttll's reasoning:

• "What do these countries have to do with each other than other being perceived as Middle Eastern or Greater Middle Eastern by whosoever? I say let's move them to West/South/Central Asia and North Africa articles. It makes much more sense"
• "Under what context, these countries are related?"
• "The United Nations replaced it with Western Asia."

He's right, the article should focus on the usage and criticism of the term "Middle East" rather than the arbitrary (and evidently controversial) concept of the "Middle East", as I said further up the talk page, the only thing this region has in common is the fact that it broadly constitutes the contiguous Islamic world, so excluding Indonesia, Bangladesh and other peripheral Islamic regions.

Could it be you're afraid that without an explicit inventory of "Middle-Eastern" countries, some people might assume Greece is part of the Middle-East? I know that prospect could send shudders up certain Hellenes' backs.

Athenean's argument is an appeal to tradition:

• "The table removed by user Mttll is useful and infromative, and has been in the article for months."
• "The table has been there for ages"

Athenean also keeps stressing that it is useful, and when asked why replies:

• "Let's see, in the onctext that they are all part of the Middle East, duh?"

This doesn't outweigh Mttll's reasoning and I strongly support, and am happy to help implement, his changes. Izzedine (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Your assumption about "shudders down Hellenes' back" is completely off the mark. I can assure you that this is not the case. In fact, you have it backwards: It is Mttll who doesn't want Turkey associated with the Middle East in any way, which is why he is so militantly against the table. As for how these countries are related, I think besides geographic proximity, how about a shared history and common cultural ties. They are only "unrelated" for Turkish nationalists who want to associate Turkey exclusively with Europe. --Athenean (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• "As for how these countries are related, I think besides geographic proximity, how about a shared history and common cultural ties."

This doesn't stand up to logic, whom does North Africa share geographic proximity and historical and cultural interaction with. Southern Europe or Afghanistan? As I keep stating, the only thing that ties the Middle East together is Islam, so call it what it is, the contiguous Islamic world, don't call it the Middle East and lump together everyone from Mauritania to Xinjiang. Are you surprised people don't want anything to do with this?

Since you stated the Middle East is based on "geographic proximity, a shared history and common cultural ties", let me ask you this in relation to Greece:

• Does Greece share geographic proximity to Turkey?
  • Turkey occupies what used to be Eastern Greece >>>
• Has Greece had substantial historical interactions with Turkey?
  • See, Anatolia, Byzantine–Ottoman Wars and Ottoman Greece.
• Does Greece have cultural similarities with Turkey?
  • When you take religion and language away, their cultures are extremely close.

By your own criterion, Greece is a Middle Eastern country, so I think I've made my point here. Let's give geography precedence over arbitrary and controversial abstractions. There is no homogeneity in the "Middle East" outside of Islam.

Mttll - Adelante! Izzedine (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You will of course notice that North Africa is not included in the definition of the middle east, and also not in the table. As for your arguments about Greece, not only are they off-topic, but they are also nonsense. One has to draw boundaries somewhere, so your "Greece is proximal to Turkey" argument doesn't make sense, because according to it, Bulgaria is proximal to Greece, so it too should be classified as part of the Middle East. And Romania is proximal to Bulgaria, and Hungary to Romania and so on and so forth. You see where this is going. And as for your argument about the two cultures being extremely close, well if you think those two cultures are extremely close beyond some superficial things like backgammon and some dishes, you have no idea what you're talking about. I like how you take language and religion "away", as if those aren't the two most important definers of a culture. Sure, if we take this and that and the other away, we can prove that the cultures of Peru and Japan are virtually identical. Greek and Turkish cultures are similar only in superficial ways, like cuisine. Look deeper, and they are completely different. But enough about all this nonsense, this is not the point of this discussion or article. The point is, Turkish nationalists want to remove the table because the idea of seeing their country associated with the middle east is anathema to them. In fact, the very idea of a "Middle East" is anathema to them. I do not consider that a valid reason for removing the table or reducing this article to a stub. --Athenean (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

North Africa is in the "Greater Middle East" table and on the maps. My arguments about Greece are in response to your flawed reasoning, you seem to be apt at replying, while saying nothing constructive in the process. I can see this talk page records your lengthy arguments with Mttll but there isn't any substance to your comments. I'm not going to be drawn into a debate about what constitutes the most important definers of culture, because that varies according to who you ask, just like the artificial and arbitrary concept of the "Middle East" does.

You haven't taken my argument and considered it on it's merits, it seems you are simply pushing an agenda. I have presented my argument and it's rationale, and as I don't sense a disposition to forming concensus from you, and I have constructive contributions to make to Wikipedia, I'd rather use my time to that end, instead of talk page bickering. It appears Mttll has been banned for several weeks for incidents unrelated to this article, when he returns to make the proposed changes, he will have my full support.

The content of this article ought to be trimmed down to the usage and criticism of the term and included as a section in the Muslim world article. Appeals to tradition, ad hominem and straw man arguments will not obstruct progress. Izzedine (talk) 01:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, yet in your above posts, I only see ad hominems, straw man arguments and assumptions of bad faith coming from you. --Athenean (talk) 07:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Where bad faith is demonstated, an assumption of such isn't in any way a problem. Your responses are vague and don't address the substance of the issue, you did this all the way through your conversation with Mttll, and now you're doing it to me. If that comment is true then furnish some examples, like I have.

Appeals to tradition:

• "The table removed by user Mttll is useful and infromative, and has been in the article for months."
• "The table has been there for ages"

Ad hominems:

• "You really seem to hate this article"
• "You have a problem with the very term "Middle East" in general, and it if it were up to you, this article would be a one-liner."
• "You just really hate the very term Middle East, and if you could have your way, you would delete this article altogether."
• "It is Mttll who doesn't want Turkey associated with the Middle East in any way, which is why he is so militantly against the table"
• "They are only "unrelated" for Turkish nationalists who want to associate Turkey exclusively with Europe"
• "Turkish nationalists want to remove the table because the idea of seeing their country associated with the middle east is anathema to them. In fact, the very idea of a "Middle East" is anathema to them."

Straw mans:

• Mttll - "What do these countries have to do with each other than other being perceived as Middle Eastern or Greater Middle Eastern by whosoever?" - "Under what context, these countries are related?".

• Athenean - "As for how these countries are related, I think besides geographic proximity, how about a shared history and common cultural ties."

• Me - "Then let me ask you this in relation to Greece, does Greece share geographic proximity to Turkey? has Greece had substantial historical interactions with Turkey? does Greece have cultural similarities with Turkey?

• Athenean - "Your arguments about Greece, not only are they off-topic (why?), but they are also nonsense (why?). One has to draw boundaries somewhere (why?), so your "Greece is proximal to Turkey" argument doesn't make sense (straw man), because according to it, Bulgaria is proximal to Greece, so it too should be classified as part of the Middle East (straw man). And Romania is proximal to Bulgaria, and Hungary to Romania and so on. (straw man)"

To expand on my point about Greece (which was an application of the criterion you gave about the "Middle East"), if those criteria are applicable, then I ask not only about Greek proximity, historical interaction and cultural similaries with Turkey, but also Greek proximity, historical interaction and cultural similaries with Egypt (Ptolemaic Egypt, Byzantia), Libya (Cyrenaica, Cyrene, Byzantia), Cyprus (Kýpros), Turkey (Anatolia, Byzantia), Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan, Iraq (Seleucid Empire, Seleucia, Byzantia, Mesopotamia, DNA analysis of Palestinians reveal they are effectively Arabized Greeks with likely origins in Crete, see Sea Peoples, [35], [36]), all of which are in the "Middle East" and not forgetting the 1 million Greek Muslims or the 1.5 million Greeks who lived in Anatolia prior to 1923, and how this relates to the position of Greece concerning the "Middle-East". To conclude, your criteria for the "Middle East" is neither accurate nor applicable, and my observation that the "Middle-East" especially the "Greater Middle-East" construct is broadly representing the contiguous Islamic world stands to be refuted. These countries have no relation with each other beyond Islam, because if that were false, then the peripheral Christian regions such as Greece, Georgia, Cyprus, Armenia, Malta, even Italy, Spain, Crimea, and others would all qualify for inclusion. Izzedine (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)