Disputatio:Asia occidentalis

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 As for en:Near East, its first paragraph says "The term has fallen into disuse in English, and has been replaced by the term Middle East."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)