Disputatio:Asia occidentalis

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

but does it make sense to use this expression which is a clear translation from modern languages but not a word ever used in latin?--Massimo Macconi 19:40, 19 Maii 2008 (UTC)

What about "Idumaea"? It's perhaps smaller than what we mean by "Middle East" in English but it's certainly in the right area, and suitably attested (for example in Pierre d'Avity's Archontologica Cosmica, here at CAMENA). On the other hand, David Morgan's lexicon does give "Oriens Medius" or "Oriens Propinquus," citing Egger. And this will be clear enough to any modern reader. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 17:32, 4 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
N.B. en:Middle East and en:Near East are separate articles. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:35, 4 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
I also looked around at Nuntii Latini. The Finns use "Oriens Proximus." As for en:Near East, its first paragraph says "The term has fallen into disuse in English, and has been replaced by the term Middle East." Similarly, fr:Proche-Orient says "Cette appellation est aujourd'hui concurrencée par l'usage du terme Moyen-Orient, traduction française de l'anglo-américain « Middle East », désignant souvent le même espace, ils sont interchangeables." So I don't see why we need two separate articles, though it might be convenient to have redirects. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 19:43, 4 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but the English article on the Near East offers quite an exercise in historiography:
1 'Eastern Questions'
12 Background
12.1 Ideas of the east up to the Crimean War
12.2 Original diplomatic concept of near east
12.3 Original archaeological concept of nearer east
12.4 Balkan confusion
12.4.1 Sir Henry Norman and his first wife
12.4.2 William Miller
12.4.3 Arnold Toynbee
12.5 Rise of the Middle East
12.5.1 Origin of the concept of Middle East
12.5.2 Single region concept
12.5.3 One presumed region, one name
13 Current meaning
13.1 Diplomatic
13.1.1 Influential agencies represented in the table
13.1.2 Table of near eastern countries recognized by some agencies
13.1.3 Other regional systems
13.2 Archaeological
13.3 Academic
There's no reason a good encyclopedia wouldn't have articles tracing the history of obsolete ideas; indeed, classical Greece & Rome (not to mention the Middle Ages) entice us with a welter of such notions. :) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:04, 4 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
I agree, we need articles about important obsolete ideas and viewpoints including this one. But we also need articles about parts of the world of immediate importance now.
Not having reference books at hand, I'm not verifying this claim, but I feel Idumaea would in origin have represented a small and fairly precise area, wouldn't it? If I'm right, Idumaea wouldn't equate to "Middle/Near East" in most people's minds. There is a different possibility: in late antiquity this area, as part of the Roman Empire, was simply "Oriens". But I'm not pushing that term either (except for an article about obsolete viewpoints, cum Iacobo), because we are writing for an international (admittedly small) audience in what is now an international language, and using terms like "Oriens" and "Occidens" as denoting an area of current world interest seems to me unacceptably POV. If Jondel (for example) is where I think he is, this region is Occidens to him, though it's "Oriens" to me.
So, in an article on history and current affairs, I would call this region "Asia occidentalis" (and some people in various languages do indeed call it that). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:55, 5 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
The proposal, then, is to move the present article to "Asia occidentalis," with re-directs from "Oriens Medius," "Oriens Proximus," and perhaps also "Oriens Propinquus" in case those terms are already here, or for people who find them in Nuntii Latini or the like. All in favor? A. Mahoney (disputatio) 13:19, 5 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
Aye. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:08, 5 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
Actum 'st. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 13:56, 8 Februarii 2016 (UTC)