Talk:Greater Middle East

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Pakistan which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Pakistan and Pakistan-related topics. For guidelines see WikiProject Pakistan and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Removing India

I strongly disagree of including India in the sphere of Greater Middle East. India has a completely separate culture from the Middle East not to mention the Hindu religion and the ways of thinking. Advil 1:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Your POV is irrelevant. This article is not a geographic description, but the description of a concept defined by the Bush administration. Many people find it ridiculous to englobe such different countries under the name of "Greater Middle East", which is an expression devoided of any sense. Tazmaniacs 22:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Afghanistan, Pakistan, & not India?

How is it that Afghanistan & Pakistan are part of the middle east, but not India? Pakistan & Afghanistan were once apart of ancient India, and if nothing else the people of all 3 areas intereacted with each other, shared cultures, and mixed....This article makes no sense.

        204.102.210.1 21:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Somalia, Sudan, and Djibouti and not Ethiopia and Eritrea? How is that they are part of the middle east, but not Ethiopia and Eritrea? Somalia, Sudan, and Djibouti were once a part of ancient (Aksum) Ethiopia and Eritrea! Sorry to satirize you like that, but religion is much more a factor of whether a country is in the middle east or not. Ethiopia and Eritrea are just miles away from Yemen and closer to Mecca than all of the N. African countries save Egypt and Sudan, but because they are Christian are not generally considered part of the Middle east. India is in the same situation. It is on the whole, Hindu, even if it has a substantial number of Muslims. Plus it's always had its own little sphere, rather than being parter of a greater Islamic one.
Yom 13:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

India should be here, India is the second largest Muslim country with a total population of 170 million muslims! It has Muslim architecture like the Taj Mahal and other famous Mosques. We should get a pic of india included, in a light green shade after all, India has a mixed culture with Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh, which are are predominantly muslim countries.

There is no India because it is directly related with Israel , even today at Northern Iraq is under the invasion of USA and his servants Barzani tribe . So many people thing that Barzani family is Kurdish family but no even atinternet you can reach this reality , which reality ? Barzani tribe is not Kurdish tribe they are Jewish with Kurdish language ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.104.134.240 (talk) 01:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arab World vs Middle East

Seems to me that the more general term used for the region is "Middle East", especially for en.wikipedia users... Why are we using the term "Arab World"? -Harmil 18:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Because traditional Middle East does not include most North African Arab countries (except for Egypt and sometimes Libya). The Arab word always contains these countries (such as Morocco). AucamanTalk 19:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I see. I missed the fact that you were not calling out North Africa as separate. I assumed you were. Thanks.
You might want to note that. Something like "Arab World (the traditional Middle East plus North African Arab countries such as Morocco)" -Harmil 19:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
No the Arab world has very little to do with the Middle East. "The traditional Middle East plus North African Arab countries such as Morocco." This is not a correct definition of the Arab world. I was just giving you an example. Countries like Iran and Turkey are in the Middle East but not in the Arab world. AucamanTalk 13:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I see. Well, if "Arab World" is so much less comprehensive than "Middle East", then why are we refering to it in an article that is about the political concept of the Greater Middle East, which is a propper superset of the Middle East? -Harmil 16:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
The Middle East is a proper subset of the Greater Middle East, but so is the Arab world. The reason why I've defined it this way is because we're defining a political term (the Greater Middle East) and "Arab world" is a political/cultural region (whereas the Middle East is a historical/cultural region). It makes sense to define a political region in terms of smaller political regions.
The other reason is that the definition is a lot simpler. If we start with the Middle East, we have to add in the rest of the Arab world in order to get the Greater Middle East anyway. If you don't want to see the word "Arab world" in the definition then we would have to name each of the countries individually, which makes the list a lot longer.
Sorry if I've made this too confusing. You can try other definitions and I can tell you what's wrong with them. The shortest definition I can think of is, "the Middle East and North Africa toghether with Afghanistan and Pakistan." But again, North Africa is not a political region and somewhat ambiguous (like the Middle East). AucamanTalk 17:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Huh?

This whole concept makes so little sense that I question the value of its inclusion in Wikipedia (countries west of Europe's westernmost borders labelled as 'Middle East'??). Is the world at large really taking it sufficiently seriously to justify it being here? Was it actually even put forward officially at the June 2004 G8 summit? I'm finding lots of stuff about plans to introduce to it (mostly coverage along the lines of 'huh?'), but nothing much about it eventually being included. --Oolong 11:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This concept is senseless, many people agree on that. The article should make clear that it is a neologism invented by the Bush administration for its uses, it is not a scholarly concept, but an ideological tool which aims at englobing in one bloc many different countries. Tazmaniacs 22:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "invented by the Bush Administration"

I believe it is inaccurate to say that the term was "invented by the Bush Administration" in 2004. A search of Google Books terms up a number of sources prior to that year, mostly of a similar geopolitical context and especially it seems concerning Central Asia.--Pharos 00:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The exact definition of the boundaries of this region depends on the authors who define it, but I agree this concept of a "greater Middle East" existed before the Bush administration. The same countries, except Pakistan, are discussed as the region "North Africa/Southwest Asia" in Geography: Realms, Regions and Concepts, 8th edition (1997) by H.J. de Blij and Peter O. Muller, a geography textbook for undergraduates in the US. 195.73.22.130 (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] is pakistan included in mid-east or indian sub-continent

As the culture Pakistan is greatly influenced by that of mid east but it is also the origin of indu valley civilization so i want to ask that whether Pakistan is included in mid east or indian sub continent.The fact that balochistan is a part of mid east and punjab and sind are part of subcontinent makes the geographical definition of pakistan a bit harder.also that northern areas and nwfp are part of central asia so its difficult to say whether pakistan is a part of india or ME or CA.. Please any1 guide me on this

Pakistan is a South Asian nation but it exists in a part of the subcontinent that has historically served as a meeting point with the regional cultures and trade of Central Asia and the Middle East. For many in what was historically Persia, Khorasan and Turkestan, the Khyber Pass (now shared between Afghanistan and Pakistan) was the gateway to the land known then as "Hindustan" but now called "India" and (depending on who you ask) Pakistan too. That being said, the main culture of Pakistan, the Urdu-speaking Muslim culture as well as the local Punjabi, Sindhi and Kashmiri cultures are defined as part of the South Asian continuum and the South Asian branch of Islamic civilization. Pashtuns are a group living in the historical border land between South Asia and Central Asia and ethnically closer to the latter yet historically tied to the former due to invasions, trade, cohabitance, and cultural symbiotic exchange. Baluchistan is generally defined as a region located in the borderland area between Central Asia, the Middle East and South Asia. The Baluch themselves are culturally identical to the Baluch in Iran and generally of Middle Eastern stock yet they number about 3-4% of the population. I consider it a South Asian state with cultural overlap, not a Middle Eastern state. In fact I don't really consider Afghanistan, the Baluchistan region or Eastern Iran to be really part of the Middle East either. The distinct cultural history in this part of the world forms (for me) a kind of bloc of its own sandwiched between the ME and the subcontinent, influencing both. I would call this region of "Greater Iranian" culture "South-Central Asia". But I'm not one to re-write geography and borders so there. Afghan Historian (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)