Talk:Southwest Asia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Southwest Asia article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Borders

According to www.worldatlas.com, Most of what we call "Central Asia" is considered to be Middle Eastern. Is this because the culture is very alike or something?

To Cantus: In my edit that you have reverted, I have made two changes; let me try to substantiate them.

1. "usually the term Middle East includes North African countries and the part of Egypt in North Africa" doesn't make any logical sense to me. Isn't Egypt a North African country? From Egypt, "Egypt is the most populous nation of northeastern Africa ...". Although Egypt includes Sinai, which is purportedly in Asia, Egypt is still in North Africa. This is akin to the following: Alaska is to the North-West of Canada, but that doesn't stop us from saying that the US is South of Canada.

Now that Egypt is in North Africa, the sentence has to be re-worded; otherwise it makes no logical sense. I'll be happy to work with you and others to achieve logical correctness.

2. 'The term "West Asia" has become the preferred term of use in countries such as India, possibly because of the perceived Euro-centrism of the term "Middle East".'

Why has this been removed? It's a logical continuation of the previous sentence, and it's fact. It seems relevant to me in the context of the previous sentence about the popularity of the term. Note that although the article lives at Southwest Asia, it talks also about West Asia. Ambarish 12:16, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ambarish, the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt IS in Southwest Asia. WhisperToMe 04:00, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Definitely. That's why the statement refers "the part of Egypt in Africa"; in other words, the part of Egypt in Asia is *obviously* in the Middle East as it's also in West Asia - it's only the part of Egypt in Africa that has to be explicitly mentioned as being part of the Middle East (acc. to some). My above complaint was about the phrase "North African countries and the part of Egypt in North Africa". Egypt is an African country; it's in the North; it's thus a North African country (notwithstanding a part of it being in Asia). Am I off-base here? Ambarish | Talk 12:37, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Less ambiguous?

The article claims this as a less ambiguous alternative to Middle East, yet India is said to use "west asia" as a preferred term, despite not appearing on our map or list of countries in this article. Is India part of this grouping or not? If not, is "West Asia" a separate thing that should be split out to another article, or is the usage simply ambiguous and inconsistent? --Delirium 06:52, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

We (Wikipedia) seem to use the terms SW Asia and West Asia synonymously; West Asia redirects to Southwest Asia. India was never a part of SW Asia/West Asia nor of Middle East. The Indian government and the Indian media (upon instructions) refer to the Middle East as West Asia. I've rewritten the paragraph a bit to address the above issue. Ambarish | Talk 12:37, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
  • The term "Middle East" isn't just "Eurocentric" it's meaning varies even within Europe depending on the position of the reader: in continental Europe people would not consider Israel to be middle eastern; I wonder if they do so in Brittain. ("Middle East" might be "America-centric".) In France Israel, Syria et c. is called near east and the middle east starts east of Syria. However, in Germany (which is east of France) Saudi Arabia and Iraq are considered near east too and India is middle eastern.

    The problem with the term is, that its semantics depend on the position; it is not just ambiguous but arbitrary. Since the position of the readers/writers vary and english is spoken in many different geographical regions, we should be careful when using relative positions! --Hokanomono 09:05, 2004 Jun 2 (UTC)

Armenia, Georgia and - to lesser degree - Azerbaijan are European countries and not Asian countries. Refdoc 15:42, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] my 2 cents

Personally, I think there should be separate articles for West Asia and Southwest Asia. Gringo300 29 June 2005 05:12 (UTC)

[edit] What's the point of this page?

Just discovered and reverted vandalism after chasing a rogue IP from another vandalised page, but having done so, I can't help but think- What's the point of this page anyway? I'm a professional geographer, and I've never heard this term used. Is it worth it's own (stub) page? Let me know if I'm being too Anglo centric and this term is used elsewhere in the world! Coyote-37 10:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

let's merge it with Middle East. It's not so much 'confused' with that term (as the intro states), it is rather a term that sees practically no use because of the nearly synonym and much more current 'Near/Middle East'. dab (ᛏ) 17:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'd support that. Coyote-37 09:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Please don't merge (at least for the time being). This page is linked to by Template:Regions of the world because Western Asia is a UN defined region. That template is itself in the process of undergoing revision but will probably need a page to link to with that term. Thanks Andeggs 10:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
One point of this page is that the United States military uses the term a lot. See also: Google search for "southwest asia" -wikipedia (914,000 hits) --Pmsyyz 04:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Those latter two purposes are completely at odds with each other, though. "Southwest Asia" seems to be used to mean much the same as "Middle East", and be to be just about as variably/vaguely defined -- even to the point of including European Turkey and the bulk ofEgypt, which to the naked eye would seem to be in entirely different continents. "Western Asia" seems to have an actual particular definition, used by the UN for assorted statistical information. So if the pages exists for those purposes, it should be moved (back) to that name, and be refactored accordingly, so as to reduce the amount of confusion experience by anyone referred here expecting a coherent definition of that region. Alai 01:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Southwest Asia should be separate from the Middle East as Egypt is in the middle east, but not in southwest asia --Astrokey44 12:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Coyote said "I'm a professional geographer, and I've never heard this term used. Is it worth it's own (stub) page? Let me know if I'm being too Anglo centric and this term is used elsewhere in the world! Coyote-37 10:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC) I'm surprised that you've never heard of the term west asia or southwest asia!!! the UN refers to this region and rightly so as West Asia.........the middle east peace process not too long ago was called West Asia peace process. Most West Asian countries including Israel are regular participants in Asian Games...Turkey refers itself as a country spread across two continents i.e Asia and Europe.....there is no continent named the middle east. It is a Euro/anglo centric term and defines a region on either side of two continents, just an easy way to group people according to ethnicity/religion etc. User: guest 01:46, 11 Dec, 2007 {UTC}

"It is a Euro/anglo centric term and defines a region on either side of two continents, just an easy way to group people according to ethnicity/religion etc"

Actually it was used by Alfred Mahan to describe the area between the Ottoman Empire and India in terms of security for the British Empire in 1902. After the Ottoman Empire dissolved the term incorporated much of their area. Read Adelson's "London and the Invention of the Middle East." Dhummel (talk) 05:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] West Asian/near East people are not black

Cuturally this area has more in common with Africa. Historically the original peoples of the region were black. This is still seen in many areas today. Archeology has shown this to be the case with dipictions in the arts of the Ancient Sumerians, Babylonians, Chaldeans, Egyptians and Cannanites.

What rubbish is this? They were not black. Ancient Sumerians, Babylonians, Chaldeans, Egyptians and Canaanites (which is spelled wrong and another reason to delete this load) were not black. Ancient and current DNA studies prove this. Please to not post biblical nonsense about Ham or afro-centric dribble. These people are portrayed as white in ancient drawings and are still white.Welsh4ever76 06:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


So where's your source?

[edit] The map

Per the map, only Armenia is in Western Asia. Georgia and Azerbaijan are unshaded yet. SamEV 13:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources?

May I suggest that issues of borders, etc. be resolved by quoting noteworthy or respected sources that actually use this language. (The article would also need to distinguish between "Southwest" "West" and "Western" Asia, which are all used differently in my experience.)Reference to the UN is a good start, but what about the wire services?-- Dawud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.60.55.9 (talk) 00:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's a quick survey of Google News hits, plus the countries most represented in the top 10 hits of each.

--JWB (talk) 11:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] countries not included

some of the countries on the list are not even included on the map.--Polscience (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should remove the map. SamEV (talk) 01:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Transcontinental countries

I am just wondering, if transcontinentalcountries in the European section have a clear not that says that they might partially belong to asia according to different definition, then why does not the western asian section say anythign about those countries being european ? you can not just include them without stating anythign about it. if you rely on the UN definition then tell us why you rely on it.

[edit] WHO gave these people the right to use the UN model as a standard

I think either all transcontinental countries should be included, or they should be all excluded. First of all we dont even know where the borders go as they are not official, thats why we dont even know which countries are transcontinental, which are completely european or not european at all. I understand that many people rely too much on the UN classification which is absolutely not correct. even though the UN has the power to recognize the borders of a sovereign state (in case of consensus among the majority of the member states) they have nothing to do with defining borders between the continents or inside a continent.WHat these borders are, is that they were created as an administrative entitiess for THE UN, and for the Functioning of the UN and thats exactly according to what they have different parts in the organization that have to "take care" of particular regions. There are many other organization who have devided continents or some regions with their own version of borders which does not mean that they are official, its purely for their organizational functioning. if the UN will call the council session where majority of the countries in the world/continent will agree on where borders go, in case of consencus(just like on this FORUM) they can make the borders official. Until then, if noone can provide any sources that says that the UN had a session where countries VOTED / AGREED on this issue, until there is a charter that says that the borders are official and etc.these borders do not set a standard for anyone in the world. they are purely for the UN in order to implement their administrative functions.(just like the US army has different commands that have to take care of particular region in the world.)
in this map all of those "transcontinental" countries are in the European command (which does not necesarily mean that they are european, though, because these are just the administrative entitys, for the functioning of the certain organization and etc. and nothing else)
We should not stop preffering the UN version over others for whatever reason it was done before--DScheffer (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thats what I was saying since the beginning of times. they are making TOO much emphasis on the UN definition which is nothing but an administrative division of the UN offices of control. the UN does not have any consensus reached over that issue and they will probably never have as it not their field of expretise. (briefly, its none of their business)--Polscience (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Transcontinental states

Im just wondering why transcontinental states are treated like they are entirely in western asia while the European section says that they are not. and also the other thing is why is the UN model used as a standard, those borders are not official and they are just for the UN, for statistical and their administrative functioning.please provide sources that state that those borders are official or change the article and stop preferring the UN version over others, there are many not less respectable organizations (Council of Europe, BBC, etc)that classify those countries as european.

[edit] Image over text.

The world map is on top of a few words "and have sociopolitical ties to the latter. Turkey is located in Europe and in Asia. The Asian part of the Arab world (including Arabia proper) is called the Mashreq in Arabic."

p.s. southwest Asia is not a *thing*. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micronie (talk • contribs) 01:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient Sumerians, Babylonians, Chaldeans, Egyptians and Canaanites are black

Most of the artifacts of the people from this ancient period are black/brown hued (unless the stone was not colored by the artist).

Statues built in honor of the leaders of these times have wide noses, big lips, large eyes, broad facial features - features of black Africans (past and present).

Discovery channel is NOTORIOUS for presenting the African peoples of these great ancient civilizations as being of European descent.

One example in particular is Discovery's attempt to push the notion that Egypt is somehow not in Africa, but in the middle east (which is part of Eurasia), which I now see Wikipedia trying to push as well. This is completely absurd. (see next comment).

These are despicably biased falsehoods.

jlh629 (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Egypt is in Africa - EGYPT, AFRICA

Take out this sentence completely.

..."usually the term Middle East includes North African countries and the part of Egypt in North Africa"

There is no ambiguity or geographical separation here.

Egypt, Africa.

jlh629 (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Not so black and white. Egyptians at points during the 20th century viewed themselves even as part of Europe, but mostly as part of the Middle East Arab community. Read Balfour-Paul's "The End of Empire in the Middle East."Dhummel (talk) 05:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Geographically, Egypt has a small part in Asia (Sinai peninsula). Kotlyarov (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)