The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 22:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Hellenized Middle East

Hellenized Middle East (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Hellenized Middle East" is a made-up term which is not used in scholarship on the Hellenistic Period (a search of google books shows a few uses referring to Greek presence in the Near East, but without any consistency [1]: one book on Gandharan Buddhism, a couple on the Middle Ages, one on Cavafy in the 19th century. This is not a term used with any consistency in scholarship). The article consists of a WP:OR map, which collapses Ashokan India into the Hellenistic world and a bunch of material largely mirrored from Hellenistic Period. Furius ( talk) 00:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Egypt, Pakistan, Middle East, India, and Greece. Skynxnex ( talk) 02:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete as WP:SYNTH. Mccapra ( talk) 04:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  You made this comment when the only section was the list of Hellenistic regions. Your claim that the Hellenistic Middle East as a concept is false, is incorrect, and not classified under WP:SYNTH. Aearthrise ( talk) 12:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment: the main issue here is not the title, but the duplication of material that is already covered elsewhere. The topic itself appears to be legitimate, whatever title it's given, and unless there's a specific title that is generally applied to the topic, any reasonably descriptive title would do. There may well be better titles, but that would not be a justification for deletion: it would justify moving the article to another title. Replacing a map with a more accurate one would not be an argument for deletion. So the only remaining issue seems to be duplication of existing material in other articles.

It sounds as though most of this is covered under "Hellenistic Period", in which case a "technical merge" might be in order. By that I mean a basic review to make sure that any useful and verifiable material from here is included there or at other appropriate articles. If so, then simply indicate that the article was merged there, and then change this title into a redirect, as a plausible search formulation. There may also be some details here that ought to be mentioned in other articles, and aren't yet, in which case a full merge may be done. But even if everything is already fully covered, it would technically be a merge as long as one makes sure of that before changing this into a redirect. P Aculeius ( talk) 09:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete. WP:CFORK. Poor page with poor and unverifiable sources that do not help identify implications that is explicitly stated by the source. The creator of the page inserted opinion by using content from other pages and used it in a circular bit of logic. Page is WP:SYNTH. RangersRus ( talk) 11:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  You made this comment when the only section was the list of Hellenistic regions. Your claim that the Hellenistic Middle East as a concept is false, is incorrect, and not classified under WP:SYNTH.

  As for the fork, I am working add more content into the Hellenistic regions section; the list came from Partition of Babylon, because it gave all of the regions that persisted throughout the cultural area's lifetime. Aearthrise ( talk) 12:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  I have removed the "Fork" information borrowed from the Partition of Babylon page, which pertained to the first rulers of the regions, and now the Hellenistic regions list section only includes the region names and important cultural tidbits from those regions. Aearthrise ( talk) 09:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Strange title, bizarre geographic scope, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH content, WP:CFORK.
  • Scholarship on ancient history uses "Near East" rather than "Middle East"; both terms are of course eurocentric, with "Middle East" reflecting Western European strategic concerns during the last years of the Ottoman Empire. Describing much of the area under Seleucid control in the hellenistic period as "hellenised" begs the question of whether that impact was more than superficial and brief.
  • The inclusion of all South Asia is bizarre; the Maurya empire is not usually described as hellenised (and the map shows it extending strangely east and south). Mapping Greece as hellenised is silly.
  • The text largely consists of an editor opining, without benefit of sources, on who became the ruler of which area after the death of Alexander, largely with no more substance than that. Any reader wanting to know about the area during the hellenistic period will be disappointed and frustrated; they will already be better served by Diadochi for successors and by Hellenistic period, including Hellenistic period#Hellenistic Near East, for the regions. NebY ( talk) 14:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

    You made this comment when the only section was the list of Hellenistic regions. Your claim that the Hellenistic Middle East as a concept is false, is incorrect, and not classified under WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.

    Further, you make an argument about "eurocentricity", but you forget that this is English wikipedia and Middle East is the English term for these areas. Aversion to the word "Middle East" is simply your opinion, and not a serious point.

    You also say that the map is bizarre because it includes South Asia and Greece; I argue the map is a good illustration of the area that generated cultural syncretism, especially for the allied and interinfluential nature of the region.

    For the last point, I circle you back to the first sentence of this response. Aearthrise ( talk) 12:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: someone seems to be working hard to improve the article currently, and the title has been changed, perhaps in response to what has been said so far here. Perhaps these edits will make a difference to whether this article should be kept or merged (I still don't think deletion is the correct means of dealing with a content fork, if it still is one after the current revision process is done). It may be a good idea to get Aearthrise's take on the content fork issue, and whether he or she has a plan to resolve that, or any of the other remaining issues mentioned in this discussion. P Aculeius ( talk) 10:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  Said editor has been adding material about citizenship in the Roman Empire and the Umayyad Caliphate. It's bizarre synth. Furius ( talk) 21:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ Aearthrise was notified about this discussion; I'm not sure why they've not engaged directly... Furius ( talk) 21:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  You only notified me 7 days after you created this thread. Aearthrise ( talk) 13:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this once to get editors' assessment of article changes. But if there are editors who are opposed to Deletion, please suggest a simple alternative outcome that a closer can carry out. AFD discussions are not resolved by complicated rewriting scenarios. The options are limited with AFD closures and they are decided by consensus so if you are arguing for something complicated, you need to win over your fellow editors to your point-of-view which usually requires simplification.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• The topic is not entirely off (the argument that the Hellenistic period extends to the Arab conquests for the Roman East is certainly not new), but currently it reads like a hodgepodge of factoids without a clear plan in evidence, and there are a lot of red flags of bizarre factual inaccuracies (the map, Alexander's conquests 'in the 2nd century BC', the 'state of Judaea', to name a few glaring ones) that lead me to question whether the authors have the expertise required to do this correctly. I am thus also for delete; this should first be properly developed in someone's sandbox, beginning with gathering the relevant literature, before a move to mainspace. Constantine ✍ 12:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Your gripe here is that you believe that this article doesn't have a plan, and claim three "red flags" one being the map showing the region of cultural syncretism. Why is the map a red flag? It easily shows the area of the original regions in the Hellenistic Middle East, and the two cultural influences that made the most impact in the early days of the area, this is the area described by Ashoka of culturally allied lands.
  • For your other two "flags", it's a simple typo of 2nd century with "3rd" century BC, and writing the word "state of Judea" instead of "province of Judea". I implore you to give a real example of "factual inaccuracies" instead of claiming them from superficial semantics.
  • You also say that this article is a hodgepodge of factoids, but the evidence follows the theme of the Hellenistic cultural area and its unique cultural aspects; the section with the partition of Partition of Babylon region list can be refined, as right now it deals with the people who began ruling these regions and has some added information on the kingdoms, and Greco Buddhism. Aearthrise ( talk) 13:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

    The problem with the map is that it comes from a source for territories mentioned by Asoka as having been conquered by the dharma, but is being used to illustrate "the Hellenistic Middle East, Greece, and Ashoka's Empire in cultural syncretism, 260 BC". These are two very different things and there are no sources to support using the image for the latter. The idea that Ashokan India was part of the Hellenistic world (or the Middle East for that matter) is not mainstream. Furius ( talk) 17:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

    You're making two different points in this paragraph about the map:

    • One that Ashoka's declaration of whom he considers allies and peers in dharma, naming rulers of the Hellenistic Kingdoms, is not the same as a declaration of "cultural syncretism". I argue Ashoka's declaration is exactly evidence of the intercultural relation of Greeks and Indians of the time:

    Indian Cultural Heritage Perspective For Tourism (2008), L. K. Singh, page 34:

    The Edicts of Ashoka, which talk of friendly relations, give names of both Antiochus of the Seleucid Empire and Ptolemy III of Egypt. But the fame of the Mauryan Empire was widespread from the time that Ashoka's grandfather Chandragupta Maurya met Seleucus Nicator, the founder of the Seleucid Dynasty, and engineered their celebrated peace.

    Hinduism: Challenges | Interaction with Buddhism, Jainism and The Greeks (2024), Ashok Mishra, page 221:

    A mission was sent to the Hellenistic Kingdoms in the West, including Syria, Egypt, Greece. According to ancient sources, Ashoka sent a delegation of Buddhist monks to these regions, where they engaged in dialogues with the local people and established Buddhist communities.

    And Man Created God: A History of the World at the Time of Jesus (2013), Selina O'Grady, page 416:

    According to many scholars, it was the coming together of Indian and Greek culture that created the very conditions that would give birth to Mahayana Buddhism. It was here that Indian abstraction met Greek individualism to create a more personal, emotional religion that in its turn would profoundly influence the mergence of Christianity. This Indo-Greek syncretism was reflected in the great statues of Guatama Buddha that the Kushan rulers erected throughout their growing Empire.

    • Your second point, "The idea that Ashokan India was part of the Hellenistic world (or the Middle East for that matter) is not mainstream", is not claimed by the map at all; the map simply describes the area of cultural syncretism. There clearly had been a long intercultural influence of the Mauryans with Hellenistic States since Chandragupta married Princess Helena of the Seleucid dynasty.

    Indian History NCERT Notes Class 6-12 (Old+New) For Civil Services Examination (2023), Rajendra Prasad, page 46:

    Seleucus married his daughter Helena to Chandragupta Maurya. After Chandragupta, his son Bindusura became the ruler of the Mauryan Empire. During the reign of Bindusura, Antiochus, the ruler of Syria, sent dry figs, wine to Bindusura. Deimachus, an ambassador of Antiochus I was at the court of Bindusara. Ptolemy II Philadelphus sent an ambassador named Dynosis to he court of Bindusara.

    Indian Cultural Heritage Perspective For Tourism (2008), L. K. Singh, page 36:

    A "marital alliance" had been concluded between Seleucus Nicator and Ashoka's grandfather Chandragupta Maurya in 303 BC... This was a common practice for formalizing alliances in the Hellenistic world. There is thus a possibility that Ashoka was partly of Hellenic descent, if Chandragupta's son, Bindusura, was the object of the marriage. This remains a hypothesis as there are no known more detailed descriptions of the exact nature of the marital alliance, although this is quite symptomatic of the generally good relationship between the Hellenistic world and Ashoka.

  Aearthrise ( talk) 10:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  The leap you make from "allies and peers in the dharma" to cultural syncretism is WP:SYNTH. None of your cited sources link the two things. O'Grady does talk about Indo-Greek syncretism, but she's talking about the Kushans. The caption does not mention what the map was actually drawn to depict at all. On your second point, depicting all these places in a single colour, together, without any borders presents them as a united region. Furius ( talk) 12:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Your repeated claim of "synth" is totally unfounded, not only from earlier comments, but this one too. It's obvious from art, architecture, written records, that the Indian and Greek cultures influenced each other. That is the literal definition of " syncretism", and to deny so is to play a game of ignorance. Beyond that, to say O'Grady is referring to the Kushans is a total misreading of the quote; she mentions the Kushans only as an example of the presence of the aforementioned syncretism in the great statues of Gautama Buddha they erected.

  Furthermore, you say the map's caption does not mention what the map was drawn to depict; So what? You act like repurposing content for use in another topic is something wrong. Regardless of its origins, it's a clean map that helps illustrate the idea of the culturally allied region, which is the point of Ashoka's declaration of who he considers Dharmic peers.

  You say "On your second point". No, this was your second point Furius, and I responded to it by showing that your previous claim about the nature of the map was incorrect and your own invention: neither the map nor the caption claimed anything you said.

  Now, because you don't want to admit your error, you're changing the argument to that because the map represents the three named regions as one unit, it makes the map wrong. If I showed a map of World War II depicting the European allies as one unit (being the cleanest map found for use) to illustrate the early British contribution to the war, and wrote "map of Britain, France, and Poland in alliance, 1939" would you also say it is wrong and "Synth" because it includes a single color, borderless map of the allied countries? I wouldn't.

  As a closing comment: just today, I have encountered another map that has colors and borders. I've changed the map; so now, you don't even have this point to dispute. All of your points, the ones that led you to make this article deletion request, have been defeated. Aearthrise ( talk) 22:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Well, good that you've changed the map. You say "It's obvious from art, architecture, written records, that the Indian and Greek cultures influenced each other." That's true.* That is why we have articles on Greco-Buddhism and Indo-Greek art (and Buddhist influences on Christianity on the limits of that syncretism). It remains very unclear what this article claims to cover that isn't already covered by those articles and by Hellenistic period. It remains unclear why there should be an article on cultural syncretism in the Hellenistic period that covers the Middle East (and India) but not Europe or the Mediterranean (as Hellenistic period does). It remains the case that "Hellenistic Middle East" is not a term that exists with a consistent meaning in scholarship (yes, google books shows that it does appear, but those citations are all using it to refer to different things from one another) Furius ( talk) 00:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  You are reaching for straws and now making arguments from ignorance. You repeat the same silly phrasing "it remains" three times:

  "It remains very unclear what this article claims to cover that isn't already covered by those articles and by Hellenistic period."

  You are saying that because the Hellenistic period article exists, we should delete this article. Following your logic, we should also delete " Roman Africans" because the article shares points with Africa (Roman province) and Romanization (cultural). That's stupid.

  "It remains unclear why there should be an article on cultural syncretism in the Hellenistic period that covers the Middle East (and India) but not Europe or the Mediterranean (as Hellenistic period does)."

  You are saying this article should be deleted because it covers the specific Hellenistic Middle East area rather than including Europe or the Mediterranean. That's also stupid.

  "It remains the case that "Hellenistic Middle East" is not a term that exists with a consistent meaning in scholarship (yes, google books shows that it does appear, but those citations are all using it to refer to different things from one another)."

  You have not proven this point at all, and are just claiming it without providing any evidence. Clearly from the work on this article, this region is definable and has certain traits: it's an area of syncretism between Greek and Middle Eastern cultures. The area changed over time, in traits and even religion, and this article reflects that.

  If you want to disprove it, show what citations you're referring to that aren't consistent with the definition. Aearthrise ( talk) 09:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  * It's moot, since the map has been changed, but what I've found synthetic is not the claim that these two cultures influenced one another in Central Asia, but that that syncretism between Greeks and India was characteristic of the Middle East as a whole, which is what a map captioned "Map of the Hellenistic Middle East, Greece, and Ashoka's Empire in cultural syncretism, 260 BC" implies; there's very limited evidence for Greco-Indian syncretism in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Anatolia (Ashoka sent some embassies, which none of the recipients considered important enough to record). Furius ( talk) 00:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  If it's moot, then why are you arguing? Are you full of hot air and want to let it out?

  "...but what I've found synthetic is not the claim that these two cultures influenced one another in Central Asia, but that that syncretism between Greeks and India was characteristic of the Middle East as a whole,Map of the Hellenistic Middle East, Greece, and Ashoka's Empire in cultural syncretism, 260 BC" implies; there's very limited evidence for Greco-Indian syncretism in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Anatolia (Ashoka sent some embassies, which none of the recipients considered important enough to record)"

  This is another stupid comment, and not based in reality. There is nowhere in the phrasing "Map of the Hellenistic Middle East, Greece, and Ashoka's Empire in cultural syncretism, 260 BC" that says Indo-Greek culture was a characteristic of the Middle East as a whole. All it says, is that these regions are in syncretism, i.e. they influence each other. You're extrapolation that the caption implies everywhere in the Middle East had Indo-Greek culture is incorrect, and just another one of your misreadings. Aearthrise ( talk) 09:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment a lot of these delete comments come from people *BEFORE* this page received so much content, namely Mccapra, RangersRus, and NebY; I was only notified 7 whole days after the creation of this deletion request. Furius originally claimed that Hellenized Middle East is a "made-up term not used in scholarship", although his search clearly showed more than 15 different citations of the term; nevertheless I changed the title to the more common "Hellenistic Middle East", with a plethora of citations. Furius also claims a lot of the material comes from Hellenistic period article, which is completely false. The majority of the content comes from books; the section with information from another article is the region list from the Partition of Babylon page and includes its citations. The map doesn't collapse the Hellenistic world into Ashoka's India, rather it illustrates the region of allied cultural syncretism that helped generate the Hellenistic Middle East. Aearthrise ( talk) 13:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete and copy to a sandbox, per Constantine. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 16:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  Give a reason why instead of just saying "per Constantine", as his argument hinges on three "red flags": the map, and then two gripes about a typo and a word choice. Aearthrise ( talk) 12:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

How about you read WP:BLUDGEON. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 12:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I read it, are you claiming that my request for you to give an elaborated reason is "bludgeoning" you? Aearthrise ( talk) 12:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

You have commented on every delete mentioned here. That is WP:BLUDGEON.

Kurt Behrendt; Pia Brancaccio (2011). Gandharan Buddhism Archaeology, Art, and Texts. UBC Press. p. 10. Doesn't mention Mithraism, Greco-Buddhism, etc. WP:OR

Paul Cartledge (2006). Thermopylae The Battle That Changed the World. ABRAMS, Incorporated. p. 5. Doesn't support, "Alexandria in Egypt, Antioch in Syria, Persepolis in Persia, Bactra in Bactria (Afghanistan), and Sirkap in India became important cultural centers of Hellenistic culture". WP:OR

Ethel E. Ewing, William Oscar Emil Oesterley, James Talboys Wheeler are not WP:RS. "Indian History NCERT Notes Class 6-12 (Old+New) For Civil Services Examination" and travel guides are not considered WP:RS. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 13:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Your claims of "WP:OR" are nothing more than nitpicks on the lede of the article; you are saying that simply mentioning the examples of the Hellenistic religions Greco-Buddhism or Mithraism can't be done because the specific citation is not in the lede (despite the fact that these citations are already present further into the article). Furthermore, in regards to the citations for the cities, all the quotes together at the end sentence of the lede establish the importance of those named Hellenistic cities Alexandria, Antioch, Persepolis, Bactra, Sirkap. The single quote you mentioned only references Persepolis.

You claim Ethel E. Ewing, William Oscar Emil Oesterley, and James Talboys Wheeler are not reliable sources. What makes you say that they're not reliable sources of information? Be specific.

This is the section using the sources you claim are "not reliable": The Hellenistic Middle East was an area that facilitated the exchange of ideas between the cultures of Greece, Persia, Egypt, India, and Africa. ^[1] Hellenistic culture was defined by its secular aspect, and facility to absorb elements from non-Greek sources such as local ideas and religion. Hellenists formed this diverse world culture. ^{[2] [3]}

Further you claim that "Indian History NCERT Notes Class 6-12 (Old+New) For Civil Services Examination" and "travel guides" are WP:RS, but don't give a reason why; disqualification of travel guides is not mentioned anywhere in the list of reliable source, so show that too.

It seems like you want to make an opinion, but not willing to provide good evidence to support it. Aearthrise ( talk) 13:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep under current name (or possibly another). The conquest of Alexander the Great led to a significant Hellenic influence on the Middle East. This is worthy of an article on the spread of Greek culture in the Middle East. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.