Talk:Middle East

I was Shocked!Turkey and İstanbul?!?

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)

Important

I'd like to ask the question, why is kkk

east filled with morons? A region who murder and blow up people because of the way they pray. But Americans get shit for trying to exterminate idiots for their own protection. No, its not complicated at all. Its survival. 

EDIT: You sir are the dumbest person I've ever met. Your the morons for not leaving us alone. Your the one who stepped into our land. We dont blow up people "because of the way they prey". If you think thats the reason, then you don't know anything about the middle east, arabs, islam. Your the same kind of people who just come up with bullshit like that to say. Get your facts straight.

There are some people from Middle East who claim that countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan don't belong to Middle East. Then there are some Afghans who claim that only pashto dominanted parts of Pakistan along with Afghanistan belong to Middle East and the rest of Pakistan doesn't.

EDIT: Thats right, pakistan and afghanistan are hardly part of the middle east. I don't know who thought that they were in the middle east. They are located in asia and thats that. So what if part of those countries are considered part of middle east. The eastern part of the middle east stops at iran.

Finally, there are some Indians who claim that since India doesn't belong to Middle East, either it also be included else Pakistan should not be included. I ask you, are you guys humans or animals?

EDIT: What the hell? Indians are far away from the middle east. You've got to be down right stupid to think that they are. India is totally different from the midle east. There is no way you can compare.

Who cares, it is God's Earth. Men has eracted artificial boundaries but in the eyes of God, there is only one country and only one nation of humans - no blacks, whites, browns, etc.

For example, take a city like New York City, USA, where there are neighborhoods where blacks are majority, others where whites are majority and again, neighborhoods where Asians are majority. Now, looking at the area called New York City, which neighborhoods should be included? Just the white dominated? Black dominated? or Asian dominated?

Wake up people, don't be a racist, it is just a geographical area, whichever country falls in that area, even if only 1% of it, it belongs to that area. And besides, it is not like Pakistan, Afghanistan or any other xyz country is getting an award for being included in that area. Middle East, South Asia, EU, etc. are just ways to segregate mankind from each other, you want to fall in this black hole and imitate Pharoah, then be it, you will have to answer God one day anyway.

loaded Statement

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)

Expansion

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

Afghanistan and Pakistan

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)

"...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 for sure and western Pakistan as 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, the only area in Pakistan with any real solid connections to the Middle East, beyond mere religion and cursory influences, is Balochistan, particularly the Makran area. (It was even ruled by the Omanis up until the 50's.) The rest of it is pretty much South-Central Asian. 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 India 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 are Aryans doesn't mean Indians are Middle Eastern. 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 and pakis..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 pakis and indians. The reason why some northern pakis and northern indians are kind of light and may have certain features that can be similar to middle-eastern people is becuase of invasions by the persian empire Afghans and Iranians are the same thing and have no relation to people of south asia (pakistan and india). 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 northern pakistan should be pulled to 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 not pakistan who speaks mainly urdu...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 has every right to be in the middle-east..pakistan and india have no right

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

• • Pakistan and India have no right? Thank goodness, we don't want to be a part of that mess anyway, even with all our problems, India is the largest democracy in the world, Hindus and Muslims got along for nearly 800 years prior to the Brits, and we're known for Gandhi and peaceful resistance. As for Northern Pakistan, sure take it, you can have all of its current problems too. Oh come on, the reason why most people have their panties in a bunch about these two countries is because of color-ism and bigotry associated with it.
  • 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: [1]
  • 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 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.

-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.

-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.

Proposed unprotection

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...

Eurocentrism?

"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

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. [2] 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)

"Eurocentric" historically inaccurate and will be changed

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)

MEast stub category

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.

The Map

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 [[3]] 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.

Standard, Greater Middle Easts and associated areas

Standard, Greater Middle Easts

--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)

Update

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)

Defining the extent and limits of an exotic region

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

Lower map - Jerusalem

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)

Political of the middle east

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.

Turkish

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)

Factual accuracy dispute

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)

Update

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)

Definition of Middle East has changed

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.

what was the British interest.............?

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?

Afghanistan is a region at the crossroads of Central Asia, Middle East, and South Asia. Also, linguastically, over half of the population speaks Farsi (which is a Middle Eastern language). 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 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)

Root Causes of conflict?

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?

Turkey?

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.

China and Kazakhstan?

Standard, Greater Middle Easts and associated areas

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.

Indo european languages are not a european trait

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".

The state of Israel as a fusion of east and west

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)

Dubious claims

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..” [4]. American Heritage dictionary's definition is "An area comprising the countries of southwest Asia and northeast Africa."[5] 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" [6]. The article in full Encyclopedia Britannica defines the Middle East as “the lands around the southern and eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea” [7]. 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”[8]. 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.[9]

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)

This Image Must Stay off this page

||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)

Removal

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."

Merge suggestion

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)

Geography

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)

Need to expand "Greater Middle East"?

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)

Controversy

Clearly the term "Middle East" is a controversy today. In the 1800th century it was used to refer to countries West of China (India, Pakistan 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).

Mithraism and Zoroastrianism don't have "middle Eastern" origins

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)

Translations

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)

Pakistan

Pakistan has been added to the middle east as of 2007 by the bush administration, I dont know why someone removed it!

The Bush Administration should not be the authority on what is the middle east and what is not. Pakistan is not in the middle east and neither is Afghanistan/

Can someone please remove Pakistan and Arghanistan from the section that lists the regions of the Middle East. They are not part of the Middle East and only because of the Bush Administration's stupidity are they being considered part of the region.

They are deinitions of greater middle east and I beleive that they should stay, as we are referring to the entire middle east in general including the greater middle east.

Well there is an entire article called the greater middle east. This article is on the proper middle east.

Great Middle East

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)

Arab peninsula

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)

Egyptians

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

Pakistan

for above post who are saying pakistan and india... for them that we as pakistan and afganistan and tajikistan are part of great Iran my leanguage and culture and we as muslim just ruled india for 900 year's under turkish King babur who was turkish speaking and his family like us after few years start speaking farci as well and we use to speak fraci before english people came to you kingdom, we as pakistani and afganistani or turkish or iranin dont feel proud we we are al so called M-east, we as muslim just respect countries, and if you wana know why then open you history books and see what M-esten counties have done to our sister kingdom ottoman, with the help of europen's. and after M-easten counties helped non muslim's to destroy islamic rule, and we as pakistanis we helping turks at that time end up take our islamic mugal land back from english rule and we still have our land under indian rule like some part of north india. and you wana know what King babur have to say about indian people when he was in india

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire#Mughal_influence_on_the_subcontinent Hindustan is a place of little charm. There is no beauty in its people, no graceful social intercourse, no poetic talent or understanding, no etiquette, nobility or manliness. The arts and crafts have no harmony or symmetry. There are no good horses, meat, grapes, melons or other fruit. There is no ice, cold water, good food or bread in the markets. There are no baths and no madrasas. There are no candles, torches or candlesticks

we as muslim made taj mahal etc things in india not indian's

Language of Afghanistan

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[10] who speak Persian.78.146.224.247 21:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Afghanistan and Pakistan

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)

Turkey?

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)

Bahá’í Faith should be added

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)

U.S. map of the "New Middle East"

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? Are you serious?

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)

PERSIANS, NOT MIDDLE EASTERN

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)

Take a chill pill mate, the Middle East in common English language usage covers Iran. Its a geographical descriptor. So, seriously mate, chill with the call cap illogical ranting. (collounsbury (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC))

Fair use rationale for Image:KUW-coat-of-arms-logo.gif

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)

Ethnic Groups of the Middle East...

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. 12.169.70.10 (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)