Talk:Near East

Here's a quote from the OED publisher: "The Oxford English Dictionary was originally published in fascicles between 1884 and 1928." If this is true, I'd like to know how the Middle East can appear in 1876 in any OED. To extend something said above, I don't see how you can believe anything you see in the papers. For that reason Stonewall Jackson refused to read the papers (According to Kidd). You undoubtedly have better luck flipping a coin or turning the pages of the Bible at random. The news media do not have a mandate to report news, only to sell papers. If any have a concern for the truth that is only because required by law. The myth of the noble reporter struggling against evil to bring the truth to the people is about like the knights of the round table, a total crock. People believe what they want to believe and the job of the reporter is to find that out and sell it back to them. If any have some different ideas their editors soon straighten them out. Call me a cynic if you like. Bow wow. In any case I find that misattribution is common. You single out the person who ought to have said that and then attribute it to him or her. Classical literature is full of that c. Thucydides, one of the best historians, freely admits that in the reporting of speeches he had no idea what was said so he filled in the appropriate words. You can see it all going on in living color right here on WP. I don't find anything on Middle East before 1900 except the middle east of someone's garden, park or suburb.Dave (talk) 03:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In French, the term most commonly used to refer to the Middle East is Proche-Orient, which is arguably more aligned to the original sense of Near East, instead of the contemporary Anglo-Saxon usage of Middle East. On the other hand, nowadays the expression Moyen Orient tends to replace more and more the older form of Proche-Orient. ADM (talk) 09:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly in English the area meant by the "Middle East" seems to have moved west over time - I think I've seen old sources that used "Middle East" to mean India & its neighbours. This would suggest there was a time when the "Near East" just mean the Balkans - perhaps after the Ottoman Empire collapsed? - and the term "Middle East" in turn drifted into its modern day definition. And then after the Second World War the geopolitics were different again such that the "Near East" was now split between west, east and Yugoslavia, so no-one needed a single term to describe them all. But it all seems to have happened very quickly. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your speculations are all very interesting. I'm interested. I think it's a great theory. It contradicts all the known facts, but it is a wonderful theory. When available, sources supersede theories. In this case they are available. In cases where they are not, too bad for us, as we are likely to think just about anything.Dave (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the map dictates the definition of the Near East based on its "archeological and historical context", should Cyprus be added as it is often included in the area on this basis (cf. sources on Cyprus in the article)? If someone could edit the map, it would be most helpful. Thanks Olympian (talk) 09:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Hobsbawn, The Age of Empire: 1875-1914, p.17, clearly state that in the late 19th century Balkans were seen as "Near East" in Europe. This should be noted in the article; also, the map needs to be adjusted, as it seems to show the modern - but not historical - definition of the Near East. I will do so now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swithered a bit about taking out this cat, would prefer to see a bit more meat in the article about why the term is Eurocentric, rather as there is over at Middle East. At the moment the article seems to be about the geographical area, and the Eurocentric tag casts a somewhat out-of-the-blue (if accurate) POV over the whole thing. Declan Clam (talk) 07:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The same as "Middle East". It's completely obvious. The terms, the concept - is as eurocentric as it gets. [2], [3]. Izzedine (talk) 07:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you failed to understand my (rather basic) point - I wasn't quibbling about the meaning of the term, rather over the content of the article. Wikipedia is chock-full of unreferenced errors, bits of POV and incorrect categorisation that people no doubt thought were "completely obvious" at the time. This one was too easy to back up for there to be any reason not to do so. Declan Clam (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is more relevant under

Western Asia due to the criticisms of the first prime minister of India, Nehru, You didn't think some objective scientist in the sky showed unusually acute perception, did you? Nehru took a vigorous stand against the British Empire at the time of Suez. Eurocentrism is still mainly preached by the Indian government. I don't see it as an especially objective argument. He argued that the middle east was only middle to an oberver in Europe. To Indians it belongs in Siam. Naturally he saw no point in continuing to use the definitions of the British. Naturally. He preferred to use another European concept, Western Asia. He did not see a need to relocate the prime meridian, which passes through Britain. If Middle East is Eurocentric, then the Prime Meridian is also. With all due respect to our Indian friends and neighbors and with all due lip service to the demise of the British Empire, let's just minimize the eurocentrism, shall we? It's either that or start agitating to put the Prime Meridian in Pakistan.Dave (talk) 03:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

what? 98.10.46.236 (talk) 05:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being a European language you can't really blame English for being eurocentric. Besides, even in Arabic the region is called the East. I support the removal of the term from the lead. References to the region's denomination in other languages can be inserted in the text body. 89.206.112.10 (talk) 13:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are various definitions but a single map. As far as I can see the map matches no definition. For example while all definitions consider North Africa as a part of near East, map does not. Why do we keep the map ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the caption on the map should qualify its use. All definitions range from only Anatolia (the Turkish Republic) to the entire vast domain of the Ottomans, including North Africa. Maybe we should have more than one map. I hate to have no map. Maybe you could find a better or a creative solution? If you have a good solution and you want to try it and the article is locked to you you can either contact the locker or if it looks good to me I can put it in. Ciao.Dave (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The intro as it stood before I expanded a little missed the whole point of the term "near east." The background section however does capture it. Thus I see that the map is questioned. It is an accurate map. Definitions of Near East do vary. There is an underlying principle, which should be brought out. The eastern question specifically involves the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Such questions only arose prior to WWI. The Near East is the range of the Ottomans. As such it went from the gates of Vienna to the tip of the Arabian Peninsula, from Algeria to the limits of the former Persian Empire. I'm going to expand the background slightly to bring that out. It is perfectly legitimate to ask for an expansion of the subsequent "Middle East" and variations based on the current range of the Republic of Turkey. I see the article has been locked just after my changes to "ancient near east" and my comments there. Whether there are sock puppet changes here I do not know. I hope no one thinks they are going to lock me out. I am autoconfirmed and a reviewer. I respond well to discussion. I'm flexible, reasonable. I do not respond well to reversion. I will make an effort to deal with the questions that have been inserted at the beginning. If you got a problem with the concept of Near East, bring it up!Dave (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The term, as used by Western

I removed this because it is not compatible with the table and discussions of the subsequent sections. We present the meaning of "Near East" as being variable and dependent on the views of different agencies. This removed section, however, presents it as "this is the way it is" purporting to take the view that there is agreement on what the Near East is and this section presents it. As a result it was questioned right away. If you say the Near East is x, the whole x and nothing but x, and it isn't, you are setting yourself up for someone to say, no it isn't, it is y, or prove that it is x. If you emphasize the variability to begin with, then there is no need to question the views presented because they are just someone's opinions. All you have to do is prove it. If we are going to do it that way, let's do it that way. We are not telling them what the near East is, only what certain people think it is, take it or leave it. And, we are going to get into that in the very next section.Dave (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford and the other major dictionaries copying and pasting their stuff stated that the "Near East" originally had Balkan connotations. I think someone on the staff had secret desires to go into drama, or maybe the Internet was not invented then. I've followed it all the way back to the 1850's. The meaning is quite general. You could go to Egypt or Algeria and be in the Near East. I think the Ottomans ported it along in a little suitcase with a crescent insignia on it. The suitcase contained a flag that said "this is the Near East." Even in the time to which the dictionary refers, Armenia was in it. Is Armenia a Balkan State? Not that I know of. The Balkans got emphasized for a time because that is where all the British agents posing as journalists and travel writers went. Britain was interested at the time. It turned out to be a pretty expensive interest all the way around. In any case the dictionary's interest is not warranted. There are people defining the Near East as Iran decades before. However it is listed as a source and I guess it is. You can prove anything at all on Wikipedia. So, I have kept it as a source but I am going to downplay and divert the phony Balkan business.Dave (talk) 03:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what Davison (not Davidson) could have said to make us think "Near East" originated in the 1890's. It seems hard to believe he would say a thing like that. I doubt he did. I don't know because we have to buy that article. Only the first page is free. What I do know is, "Near East" did not originate in the 1890's. If he said that he was wrong. But as I say, far more likely WP is wrong. Whoever is wrong, it is a wrong statement and cannot be used here without contradicting proved statements I am going to quote. So, he is going at least for the near east.Dave (talk) 02:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice table no doubt. The groupings of these nations are somewhat different for different agencies leading to repetitions. Iran, for example, is a Gulf state but also has its own entry. So it is in two entries. We could load the thing up with notes explaining what we mean. I think the best way to handle it is the least common denominator method. Expand that out by several countries each with its own unique entry. One of these agencies is under the State Department of the United States. So, don't we owe it to the country to try to get this comprehensible and correct? Moreover, there are international agencies, and what about the agencies of our cultural parent country and sibling countries and cousin countries? We're a pretty big family. Not to mention our good friend countries such as Turkey and Greece must have something to say. Of course we cannot fit them all into one table. However, if we codify the names of the agencies we can fit a whole lot more in there. I am sure these changes cannot be made overnight. However that is the direction in which I plan to take it unless someone has a better idea or one of equal weight. So if it starts looking a bit ragged be patient. We don't want to disappoint the State Department, do we?Dave (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too hasty. P 17 of that work only states that SW Asia became the Middle east because the Balkans were still named the Near East. Hobsbawm does not mention Hogarth. We're going into more detail than this shallow and inaccurate one-liner by Hobsbawm. Hogarth did do a well-known geographical assessment and his book is readily available so I propose we get rid of Hobsbawm in favor of Hogarth himself. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Nay.Dave (talk) 09:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The Eastern Mediterranean island of Cyprus is also included in several definitions of the Near East, based on its geographical location as well as its cultural and historical background.^[1][2][3] USAID places Cyprus in their reports on the Near East.^[4] Additionally, the Near East University is situated in the country's capital, Nicosia."

This text seems extraneous. A lot of words are spent elaborating the proof that Cyprus is considered by some to be in the Near East. The point is not contended as far as I know. A lot of different people have a lot of different views. We already make this point in the table. As in the discussion above, there is no point in telling them what is in the table when they can look for themselves. For Simmons book, well, there is a long list of famous archaeological books utilizing the term "Near East." Why Simmons? He's a late-comer on the scene. I created a section that covers the scholarly uses of the term and cites a few major references. Nobody is interested in what Simmons thinks as opposed to V Gordon Childe and a great many others. We don't have to prove that the archaeologists have used and are using the term. A couple of major references are all I see as being necessary; otherwise, we would have a bibliography here many pages long. The point is not contended. Simmons is not a major reference. For the Washington Post, well, dingies. Their definitions change practically minute by minute. They don't have a consistent definition. It all depends on the articles that have been written recently. If an article was not written a chunk of the Near East does not go in. They make it up article by article. This is neither a major reference nor a stable source. I'm not saying they are not a great newspaper, I'm only saying, the newspapers are not interested in stable definitions. They report on those of others. For the University of the Near East, well, that was never placed at all until there was a question about the Turkish presence in Cyprus. I'd rather see how the Turkish governemnt defines it. While we are at it we should check the Greek government, the Israeli government and some others. The table gives us room for 4 or 5 more. I will be checking into that. We should get the most influential agencies but no matter how we cut it a table of only 10 or so columns is going to omit many.Dave (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over their site pretty carefully and they do not mention the term Near East in any way whatsoever. They have a Middle East and Africa. That is it. They have even less than the CIA and I am not putting in the CIA. This removal temporarily reduces the table to three columns. I am having trouble finding anyone who still wants to use Near East outside of ancient near east contexts. There must be others in the English-speaking world. I guess it is too much associated with the days of empire. I can find lots of people who do NOT use it. This agreement that the earlier editor was talking about, I suppose he saw that mainly in the ancient near east. If you remove them, there is no agreement. I will keep looking though. Plenty of column space left in the table.Dave (talk) 01:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I first started looking at this article weeks ago the previous editor(s) was/were taking the view that there was essential agreement on what the Near East is. The table was devised with that in mind. After weeks of looking at web sites and books I would have to strongly disagree and further I can say what went wrong. The initial work was done by skimming the first 20 or so web sites in English. All the uses of Near East were combined and they were all in English. The State Department came to the fore. If you have a hundred or so sites of all kinds of definitions of Near East then naturally you can skim off the ones that seem to support your point of view and that appears to have been the case.

First - the State Department and those agencies that feed from it are the only ones I know that use this term extensively. Everyone else has abandoned it. The former structure of the Ottoman Empire is simply not of much use practically speaking today. Outside the State Department there is no agreement at all on any such diplomatic region. No one you would expect to use it uses it: the British, the Greeks, the Turks, the French, the United Nations, the European Union. The diplomatic site of France had a map that says Proche Orient on it but it never lists any countries under it, only an alphabetic list of all the countries. If you really scrounge you can find an area "the Near East and Africa" but unfortunately the list does not distinguish which is which. The French are only using vague and general geographic terms here. They have no Near East region either. The status of Near East is exactly that, apart from the US State Department it is a vague and general term about which there is no agreement at all.

If we look for some relief of this vaguary, some clear definitions from the experts, we find that Near East is a very common term in academic-world. All the major universities and museum departments seem to use it. So, I looked at a large selection, several of which I put on here as external links. I will put more on. It seems that what they measn is what they have; that is, whaever collections and people they have in their inventory. That becomes the Near East for them. They are making it up as they go along. True, there is a vague and undefined sense of what might be Near Eastern. Vague and undefined. None are identical. It seems to be a posh term, a refinement that smacks of aristocracy in the British Empire, the upper class colonial officers, the ultimate taste of refinement among those who can afford it. That ain't us. We're looking for science, precision, careful definitions. We're the Thomas A Edisons of the world. We define everything and there is no universal definition of Near East.

So, slap my hands if you want, but I am changing the outlook of the article to the diversity mentioned in the intro. As for the table, well, it only demonstrates the power and influence of the State Department. It can keep that. That leaves three columns, as USAID has adopted the practical rather than the ideological approach. I am despairing of finding another. The list of agencies that di not use Near East, and wouldn't care to use it, is staggering. I have to cut it off. If you don't like my selection, put your own in, but try not to use local or less weighty agents.Dave (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

                           women of mashriq(east)

as a pakistani i consider that mashriq consist of contries like pakistan, india etc as i consider pakistani women is much better then then western women because she has openmindedness and shyness same time. in west momen has to do both work of women and man.she has gave birth of child and take care of them as a mother and work in the office like a man so she has a dual duty. eastern women has only work of women but as the modern eastern women want liberlization,modernity and she is losing his status as women and going towards west women. so, this is alarming situation for women i say to women think of it ........... by Rana yasir iqbal university college of agriculture ,sargodha ,pakistan.

Half this article could be excised without losing relevant information.89.121.160.79 (talk) The 'Eastern Questions' section in particular seems a bit iffy. I really didn't get much info out of it, other than the author didn't like the Ottoman Empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.206.33 (talk) 08:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bad enough that middle and near are interchangeable. I'm fairly old and this has been bugging me since youth. Thanks for the article. To show how laughable this can all get: People talking about Israel like to say "the middle east" instead. They WILL NOT utter the word Israel. As a teenager someone told me how in the middle east sellers of souvenirs to tourists would inflate prices to outlandish levels, and would expect the tourist to "bargain". Otherwise he was just a sucker. I said that's an interesting point about Arab bazaars. He said "not Arabs". I said but the middle east is Arab countries. He said "not Arabs". He WOULD NOT say Israel. Have you noticed how some things sink in about 20 years later in life? George Slivinsky (talk) 10:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Slivinsky (talk • contribs) 09:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of the near east that supposedly comes from the Encyclopædia Britannica includes Gaza, the West Bank and Palestine but not Israel, which seems odd. The source that is given leads to an article from the Encyclopædia Britannica with completely different definition. The inclusion of both Palestine as well as the names of both the Palestinian territories is also odd, since usually one or the other is used. This makes it seem to me like the name Israel has simply been changed to Palestine in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.71.67.10 (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That Britannica link in the intro, which supposedly supports the current list, does not even mention a single country by name. Clearly a fake citation.--

Damianmx (talk) 09:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Act of vandalism where, in the lede, "Saudi Arabia" has been changed into "saudia Arabia"? Carlotm (talk) 10:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Near East. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930005356/http://nesa-center.org/en/nesaregion to http://nesa-center.org/en/nesaregion
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/pubPDFs/PolicyFocus65.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110622112233/http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/sitemap to http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/sitemap

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody know why Near East and

Yeah I don't get it. I see nothing at

MOS:ITALICTITLE that would seem to cover this article. The change was made in this unexplained edit: [4] BappleBusiness, would you care to enlighten us? GA-RT-22 (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Like

WP:ITALICTITLE states that italics should be used for the title when italics would be necessary in running text, which brings us back to MOS:WORDSASWORDS. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 05:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I just revised the first sentence in Middle East, since it was poorly constructed. The Middle East is a region, not a term. One can write either "The Middle East is a region" or "Middle East is a term that" or "'Middle East' is a term that", but not "The Middle East is a term that". Largoplazo (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised the intros at both Near and Far East to remove the (highly confusing) italics. Srnec (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "Other regional systems" block contains weird paragraph about CIA. Seems very random.

francesco3 (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was quite a tangent. I've edited the CIA tangent out. Largoplazo (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I included sources about specific countries located in the Near East and Middle East to clear confusion on this topic, however, even with fact-based evidence provided by the United States Government, my findings and edits are being reverted by LouisAragon, who has no right to do so. Again, fact-based evidence from a reliable source. He is constantly abusing revert rules and is quick to delete information. Ricemaster12 (talk) 19:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"fact-based evidence provided by the United States Government" Since when is the federal government of the United States a reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking? It regularly produces propaganda. Dimadick (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The terms Near East and Middle East are propaganda by nature. Might as well delete both the pages! Ricemaster12 (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down. They are geographical names, which are often pretty arbitrary. Sometimes names like these even become country names. Morocco (Al-Maghreb) is literally just called "The West" in Arabic, and China (Zhongguo) is "Middle Earth". Places names are all arbitrary ultimately. There is of course also the Europe/Asia split that breaches the general rule of alignment between continents and major continental plates.

Iskandar323 (talk) 12:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:RS (in no particular order) ever since they've started editing. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• "The terms Near East and Middle East are propaganda by nature. Might as well delete both the pages!"

Case in point. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, not detach, but INCLUDE. There’s a difference there. Im just finding older sources that will help with clarifying the terms ME/NE - you’d be surprised how many people are extremely confused by the terms Ricemaster12 (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You’re the one that told me National Geographic is not WP:RS, so seeing it used in this article is quite controversial IMO. No worries though, I can add better sources :) Ricemaster12 (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

China (Zhongguo) is "Middle Earth": hahaha, you're confusing China with J.R.R. Tolkien. It's "middle country" or "middle kingdom". Largoplazo (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I knew it was middle something, but yeah, middle country. Though

Iskandar323 (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Appropriate to include a section from LoC? Link: https://www.loc.gov/rr/amed/nes/nesctylng.html Ricemaster12 (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]