Talk:History of the Middle East

message: I think it is worth mentioning that the eleged reason for going to war against Iraq (Weapons of Mass Destruction) turned out to be untrue. There were no weapons found. I have added this to the article... It is a known fact that evidence has never been shown. Reference: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/
Mazenharake (talk) 10:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No weapons of mass destruction found 

message: Without an introductory sentence describing the geographical area covered, this article is close to useless for many readers. There is controversy about the terms "Near East" and "Middle East" anyway. Near what? East of what? Itsmejudith 08:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, thank you Adam. Yes, it is discussed at great length (probably too great length) there. I have added a sentence to direct back to it. I did find it initially very confusing. I still think there is a lot of clearing up to be done about the whole group of articles related to the history of this area. The story of the rise of Islam, establishment of the Ottoman Empire, etc. is told many times, each with variations.Itsmejudith 20:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no geography? 

message: "the Arabs found they had been betrayed, indeed doubly betrayed"<BR>
This needs to explained. I think that the British had always been open about their intention to distinguish between areas of the middle east that were clearly arab and other areas that were not. There may have been arabs who felt betrayed, but it is not clear that their expectations for post-WWI political boundaries were realistic. Can Wikipedia flatly say that they were betrayed? If so, the specifics need to be cited. --JWSchmidt 18:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: betrayed

message: "The advent of a new western army of occupation in a Middle Eastern capital marked a turning point in the history of the region. If the U.S. succeeded in transforming Iraq into a prosperous and stable democratic state, the consequences for the region might be great. The consequences of failure would also be very far-reaching. Political progress in Iraq was slower than expected, and was complicated by an ongoing Iraq insurgency, but successful elections were held in January 2005 and power transferred to a Shia-dominated elected government."
This seem slightly POV/"if, if, if" to anyone?--WaltCip 00:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV at risk 

message: Shouldn't there be some mention of Israel's war in Lebanon against Hezbollah in 2006?  The list of Arab-Israeli wars ends in 1982.  The 2006 war was pretty big... longer than the others, also.
I have added a short paragraph about the 2006 conflict, but there is a separate larger article already existing 2006 Israel-Lebanon Conflict. Bencgibbins 14:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lebanon '06?

message: I reverted a comment made by an anon who found the page too difficult. S/he may have a point. Itsmejudith 11:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too difficult? 

message: This page really needs to be updated. Either remove the last part about Iraq and the US and provide a link to the "War on Terror" article or update it with current events. The article makes it seem like the problems in the Middle East are atarting to resolve with lines like:
"Political progress in Iraq was slower than expected...but successful elections were held in January 2005 and power transferred to a Shia-dominated elected government"
convey that all is well in Iraq. Meanwhile the Iraqi parliament has petitioned for the US to leave Iraq and the US congress is doing the same. All is not well and this article is misleading. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.169.45.251 (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update? 

message: why doent the map have Iran as part of the Middle East. Last time i checked it was a middle Eastern country  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.227.139 (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Map 

message: Throughout the article, various transliterations of many Arabic terms are used (e.g. "Hezbollah", "Hizbullah") with no explanation. This is confusing. Only one transliteration should be used consistently for each term, with other common transliterations mentioned in brackets after the term is first introduced.
For continuity, all the Arabic terms should be transliterated similarly, meaning that if we use "Hizbullah" as the standard, we should also use 'Muhammad' rather than 'Mohammed'. The short 'e' and 'o' vowel sounds as we use them in English do not exist in Arabic, so it could be argued that "Hizbullah" is preferable to "Hezbollah". Raylin (talk) 10:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that consistency is important. There is also policy to use names recognisable to readers of English. Articles relating to the Islamic Prophet use Muhammad and I believe that is a policy of the Islam Wikiproject. "Hezbollah" is the most usual form of that name in English, so there is a case for using it even if on this occasion we are not consistent with other transliterations. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transliteration needs to be standardised 

message: "Meanwhile, the fall of the Ottomans had allowed Kemal Atatürk to seize power in Turkey and embark on a program of modernisation and secularisation. He abolished the caliphate, emancipated women enforced western dress..."
I hesitate to agree that emancipate is the correct terminology... the pendulum swung the other way entirely, and "emancipated" is entirely at odds with what comes after it - "enforced western dress".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.212.51 (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ataturk "emancipated women" did he? 

message: I'm just curiuos why there is no mention of the original Kingdom of Israel, established around 1020 BCE and continuing, though eventually divided around 930 BCE into Israel and Judah, until the Assyrians defeated Israel around 722 BCE and the Babylonians subsequently did the same to Judah, around 586 BCE.  It seems that this page is just another taking part in the general historic revisionism intended to help the eventual aim of eliminating Israel from existence.  This page, until it is revised to include the existence and history of Israel, deserves a failing grade.
The word "palestine" did not even come into use until the Romans conquered the area and, as they usually did, they usurped and renamed just about everything as part of their campaign of subjugation.  I'm wondering if anyone can tell me the borders of any country named "palestine", what day or year any such nation was formed, who was their first leader, what was their currency, etc.  The answers, of course, cannot be given because, thanks largely to the Arabs, there never has been any country named "palestine" and, as far as I know, the Israelis are the contry that has done the most to rectify this situation, negotiating for decades against their better interests to provide for creation of a "palestine" on land they rightfully conquered after being attacked by Arabs who previously prevented it from being used for the same purpose.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I'm going to have to repeat myself. Your arguments are completely hallow. Just because a modern state system is not in place in a particular region does not mean that its inhabitants simply don't exist. Also, Arabs (bad generalization by the way, since Arab interests are much more distinct amongst each other than modern Western ones) had very little to do with Palestine not becoming a state, it was mostly the fact that the natives were nomads, Beduins and before 1970 only 20% of the Palestinian population lived in cities. Get it into your head: using a land to create, manage or in any way make use of a modern state is NOT some sort of noble goal, it's merely a goal. This being said, Israel's purpouse to create a proper country is not noble or valiant. It's just its purpose meant for its own self interest. 
The original Kingdom of Israel is insignificant in modern debates. Why? Because there is no policy of taking back what your 2000 year old ancestors lost. Let's assume that you lose a bit of legitimacy over your past possessions with every minute that has passed since you lost it; it's a reasonable assumption. In that case, the Jews' reasoning for reclaiming their country from the Palestinians is a lot less justified than the Aboriginies reclaiming Australia, the native Americans reclaiming the United States or, for that matter, the Brits reclaiming US. Think about it: Their families have lived there for THOUSANDS of years, how are they going to feel if you tell them that they have to leave?
And to conclude, this is the 21st century, the post-modern era of international relations, conflict management and resolution.. there is no such thing as 'rightfully conquered' any more, what Israel did and continues to do to this very day actually violates international law.
You ask for people writing this article to be unbiased yet you are shamelessly biased yourself. You made sure every mention of 'Israel' starts with a capital and every mention of 'palestine' doesn't. There is no one in his right mind who would ever take you seriously.  The wikipedia auto corrector will underline your word for being misspelled if you type 'palestine' 
188.221.137.12 (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention of Israel Curiously Absent. 

message: The section Ottoman era claims that Ottoman Sultan Abdulhamid II was a reforming sultan as well as Mehmet Ali Pasha of Egypt. Abdulhamit and Mehmet Ali were not contemporary rulers. Mehmet Ali reigned between 1805-1848 and Abdülhamit reigned between 1876-1909. So they can't be easily compared. Besides unlike Mehmet Ali, Abdülhamit was not a reformer. A more realistic name in Ottoman side might be Mahmut II (grandfather of Abdülhamit) who reigned between 1808-1839. Mahmut II was a comtemporary of Mehmet Ali and a reformer.Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reformer in the Ottoman side 

message: The image appears to be enhanced artificially. When compared with Google Earth or www.wikimapia.org, the map on this article has a lot of greenery.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.210.41.66 (talk) 06:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Map Image 

message: If you see here, you will agree that this history starts in 1902, and therefore either the article is too long, or needs to be renamed to History of eastern Mediterranean Koakhtzvigad (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And the article on LGBT history should start in the 1990s because that's when the term came into use. The things they convey are almost almost older than the terms themselves. Moreover, the terms "Middle East" and "Near East" are synonymous today. Even more than that, the "Eastern Mediterranean" is a synonym for the "Levant", which is only one part of the Middle East. 213.109.230.96 (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong title 

message: The fact that all these North African and Middle Eastern Nations are having uprisings MUST be mentioned in this article 68.55.176.205 (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  North Africa/Middle East 2010-2011 

message: The Middle East has had many lingue franche. It would be splendid if someone included a timeline of these in the article. 213.109.230.96 (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of the Middle 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 http://www.webcitation.org/6KKWk56jd?url=http://www.aina.org/brief.html to http://www.aina.org/brief.html
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6KKWk56jd?url=http://www.aina.org/brief.html to http://www.aina.org/brief.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of the Middle 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/20140419013816/http://www.ncdr.ae/liwa/issues/LIWA06E.pdf to http://www.ncdr.ae/liwa/issues/LIWA06E.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have no idea how to address this issue, but in the section on modern history of the region there is an US government educational video which is labled as having been made in 1963. However, the video discusses events to at least 1967. Does anyone know how to address this?
Nemoanon (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong date 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:12, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: What do the terms Early / Middle / Late Islamic period mean? How are they defined? When do they start and end? They show up in articles about Jordan for instance, but I cannot find a periodisation offering the basic meaning. Are these terms mainstream, are they outdated, can they be used over larger parts of the Muslim world?
I will post this also on other relevant pages. The discussion should be held at Talk:Timeline of Islamic history (so not here). Thanks. Arminden (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of Early / Middle / Late Islamic period 

message: — Assignment last updated by Wildcat2026 (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: MIT 398 Intercultural International Communication

message: They always seem to be fighting. Is it built in somehow? Other regions fight but continuously? 2A00:23C6:F680:2C01:217B:F5B1:2653:CD8A (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict