![]() | This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This category was nominated for deletion on 29 June 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | Click here to create the mediation request for this article. |
I have compliled listings for most of the countries here. Some people have made contributions, either following my format or doing it their own way. It would be good if we had some consistency in the design, but only if gets some kind of endorsement from other contributors. Any comments? Kransky 22:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Based on advice from several people, I have started to rename the articles (beginning with "A") to follow Wikipedian naming conventions ("Albanian diplomatic missions" becomes "Diplomatic missions of Albania"), with the category tags written so that they are ordered according to the name of the country. Kransky 12:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
In compiling these lists Turkey has been categorised as being part of the Middle East. This is in reflection of the majority of Turkey's landmass and population, including its capital, being situated in Asia, by its cultural heritage being sourced indigenously and from the Middle East rather than from the Greek-Latin tradition, and the perception by Europe that Turkey is not part of Europe (evidenced by its inadmission to the European Union.
Some anonymous contributor with ID address 88.244.70.228 has sought to change entries so that Turkey is listed under Europe. While he or she is passionate about this issue, no explanation has been offered why this change needs to be made. There are Europeans who may have an opposing view why Turkey should not be included.
In case the user at 88.244.70.228 thinks that some kind of anti-Turkish sentiment is at play, I would remind him/her that I wrote the Diplomatic missions of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus article, and defended its inclusion when people wanted it removed.
Could I please have support to reinforce the convention that Turkey is listed under the Middle East, and not Europe, at least not until (say) Turkey joins the European Union or is otherwise generally regarded as a European country.
In the meantime I am reverting all of 88.244.70.228's changes back. Kransky ( talk) 12:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Turkey is neither culturally or historically European. It should be classified as being in Western Asia/The Middle East. Canadian Bobby ( talk) 17:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree, Turkey is in the Middle East, both culturally and physically. It should remain being categorized as such. Aquintero82 ( talk) 15:05, 20 January, 2008 (UTC)
Difficult question. As categorised items it's both, as geography suggest :) But for the sake of uniformity we must make choice and I will prefer Middle East (or even better geographically Asia) as user:Chris j wood above suggest. Middle East is not clear category. I prefer listings by continents than simple alphabetical order. -- Krokodyl ( talk) 19:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I see what has happened, and it is very mind-boggling. First, we must ask two questions:
Is Egypt in Africa or the Middle East? Is Russia European or Asian?
The answer is of course YES, YES, YES and YES. This same question, is Turkey European or the Middle East is of course answered the exact same way, YES and YES. Have those who deny one or the other not heard of the bridge city known as Constantinople/Istanbul or Thrace and Anatolia? Is not Thrace European and Anatolia Asian/Middle Eastern? Are both of those parts, linked by the city above, ALL encompassed within the country known as Turkiye, or Turkey?
To the writer who said Anatolia has no Arabs is incorrect- you know of Antakya and the region that borders Syria? Siirt? Gaziantep? Have you forgotten about 1 million Arabs? To add, Kurdish people are also included in the Middle East, and despite how Turks feel about Kurds, they exist and they cannot be denied. This is about numbers, not about past grudges or present political problems.
Turkey can be BOTH and IS both- historically, geographically, totally both. Why start a fight, because of naationalism? Petty pride? Denials for a cause? Come on- be better than that. Monsieurdl mon talk- mon contribs 00:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
There are several arguments in favour of putting Turkey in the "Middle East" category. In my opinion, however, Turkey should be listet as a European country. Reason 1: Turkey is an official EU candidate country. Reason 2: Anatolia is often referred to as the bridge between Europe and Asia. Cyprus, situated southeast of Turkey/Anatolia is part of the European Union, why, then, should Turkey not be able to be a part of Europe? -- Andreas Ehrmann ( talk) 16:11, 06 February 2008 (CET)
85.100.85.108 has now got a name ( User:Izmir lee) and decided to reorganise the Diplomatic Missions by Country articles.. I would have expected him to get a consensus first from other writers, or perhaps even think of reasons why we categorise by continent do but... hey... this is a democracy, and he wanted to be bold.
In the meantime I have reverted the alphabetical change. If Izmir lee wants, he can move Turkey to Asia. But if anybody wants a vote on changing the formatting, which would mean we will no longer be able to compare diplomatic networks within specific regions, just to please some kid who only became a Wikipedia user yesterday, please note it is something I Strongly oppose Kransky ( talk) 11:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Kransky... Question: do you HATE Turkey and Turks?? I see that you consider Armenia as "Europe" but not Turkey, that means your borders of Europe are religion based (ie, christianity) and not geographical. Well I do not know if you have been to Turkey AND any State you name as "Middle Eastern", like Syria or Iraq prior to this date, which I would gladly invite you to, since it will clarify your ideas. I do not know from where you look at things but I see some lack of information, like your post on the Cyprus issue saying "I understand that Greeks are very sensitive on the issue, since if some foreign invader came to my homeland carved up a new country and treated it like a state"... meaning that Cyprus was NOT home to any Turks?
Please let's stop that pretty lame edit war on the diplomatical missions, as Turks are pretty sensitive on it. A region named the "Middle East" is not a continent like Asia or Europe or Antarctica, but is a political Entity, that is still not well defined. Some people include Egypt, (Africa) some people Afghanistan, (Central Asia) some people both some people neither some go as far as including Algeria and for example excluding Israel. If you make such sub-continental groups, then you must create a separate one for "Southeast Asia" or "Central America" and so forth, each with non-defined borders, and as you could guess, we could not get away with it as we would constantly be harassed by Nicaraguans or Indonesians claiming our listscarry false information
When it comes to Turkey, we are speaking of a state that is candidate for EU membership, a very prosperous economy, a member of the OECD and a permanent participant to the UEFA and to organisations such as the Eurovision. The history of Turkey and the Ottoman Empire has shaped Europe as much as it has shaped Western Asia. If you ask citizens of Turkey, they will, for the majority , tell you that they are either feeling "European", "Asian-Anatolian", or neither or both (but mostly not belonging to some imaginary political entity named "the Middle East" though). As it is pretty unfair to place Turkey in one category, without pretty much prior knowledge of Turkey or the Turks, it is also pointless to coin something on them they do not even see themselves as.
I would personnally be OK with a double-representation of Turkey on those lists, (like on the UN lists) together with other bi-continental countries such as Russia, with an icon-figuration in both Asia and Europe. (Definitely not in the Middle-East)
Since you are the Creator of those lists, with all the respect we owe you, you have a great part in the responsability to think of a viable solution that goes beyond your own set of thought, or, if you do not want to think about it, I can bring it up to the WikiProject Turkey page and we can discuss it all together.
Cheers!
-- Eae1983 ( talk) 10:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Quote: "In compiling these lists Turkey has been categorised as being part of the Middle East. This is in reflection of the majority of Turkey's landmass and population, including its capital, being situated in Asia, by its cultural heritage being sourced indigenously and from the Middle East rather than from the Greek-Latin tradition, and the perception by Europe that Turkey is not part of Europe (evidenced by its inadmission to the European Union."
First of all, as we can see, your opinions whether Turkey should be included in one category or the other (namely here the "middle east" or europe) is not based on any factual information, but your personnal opinion.. (ie, "Turkey is not part of Europe (evidenced by its inadmission to the European Union." or by "its cultural heritage being sourced indigenously and from the Middle East rather than from the Greek-Latin tradition" -oh i love that one, what will you do about the greek roman and byzantine heritage, nonetheless the central asian heritage? these questions could be so easily answered if you looked at architecture, cuisine, and living habits of Turkey and Turks which you obviously do not enough about...- now when it comes to landmass and population, 13 millons of 70 live in the European side of the Bosphorous, that is also home to ALL consulates of Istanbul.
Now that population is way superior to whole countries such as Albania or Macedonia etc, who are entirely in Europe. The land, being around 15% in Europe, is still 15%, and NOT 0% compared to other countries such as Armenia, Azerbaijan or Cyprus. Now whether you have chosen to include the Ex-USSR states entirely in Europe is ALSO your personnal choice, and does not reflect the true nature of things, such as Armenia being Western-Asian, or placing Turkey into continent that you name "The Middle East" that does not officially exist.
About doing an article about the TRNC missions, and using it for your urguments that you do not "hate" turkey... hum hum.. remember, greeks were really "sensitive" on the "issue that someone came and carved THEIR" homeland.. hum hum hum... Yes indeed, I think you do not "Hate" Turkey, but actually, you do not know ENOUGH about Turkey or the Turkish Culture. I gladly invite you to search about Turkey (Wikipedia, although -sometimes- innaccurate, is a great source of general culture) and of course, you are also invited to visit the Beautiful and Magnificient (middle-easetern, asian, european, greek, roman, ottoman (?) ) city of Istanbul...
Well, about getting support whether Turkey is "European or Middle-Eastern" from other Wikipedians, that mostly do not even know or care about Turkey, is, i find, pointless. Let's think of an example: Spain, a European country, with some Arab heritage that makes up today roughly around 15% or arguably 10% of its culture. If the common western european mass decided unanimously (Except the elite) that spain was "Arab but not European" then, on lists like this, Spain would be put under let's say "North Africa" but not Europe. Of course, that would not change anything from the fact that yes, Spain IS European, but this fact would only be known to the Intellectual Elite.
About me hating the Middle-East.. of course not. (Although I find the term "Made-Up" and open to interpretation or controversy) but you must be careful when assuming that Turkey's Heritage is "Middle Eastern" as it is not. Turkey's cultural heritage, according to different regions and populations and living habits, would be, according to my analyses, 33% European, 33% As Chris J Wood would point it out Central Asian and 33% Middle Eastern, in a perfect and harmonious mix. So if you would pretend putting Turkey in "Europe" would be wrong, putting the country under "Middle East" or anything such would be as wrong, reason why AT LEAST 66% of the Turkish population would get offended.
Now when you say "Turkey figures in the "Middle East" article, may I ask you what would you think about that map:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Europe_countries_map_en.png
Or that one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Languages_of_Europe.svg
Even this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Europe_gdp_map-1-.png
Oohhh that one too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Europe_population_growth_2006.png
Of course, that one also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Europe_biogeography_countries.svg
The commonality between all these maps is that they figure under the "Europe" article (ohh!), a nice and neat Wikipedia article that also has quotes such as:
"Because of sociopolitical and cultural differences, there are various descriptions of Europe's boundary; in some sources, some territories are not included in Europe, while other sources include them. For instance, geographers from Russia and other post-Soviet states generally include the Urals in Europe while including Caucasia in Asia. Similarly, numerous geographers consider Azerbaijan's and Armenia's southern border with Iran and Turkey's southern and eastern border with Syria, Iraq and Iran as the boundary between Asia and Europe because of political and cultural reasons. In the same way, despite being close to Asia and Africa, the Mediterranean islands of Cyprus and Malta are considered part of Europe."
(Woops, I quoted from Wikipedia!)
By the way, rest assured, I can give you thousands of maps or quotes including Turkey as in the Regional Settings such as "Europe", "Asia", Middle East" "Balkans" "Black Sea" etc. etc. thruth is that Turkey, someway or another belongs to all of them, and this geocultural fact is not determinable nor by you nor by me.
I am asking you a last time? Is Istanbul a Middle Eastern city? (look at the "Istanbul" article, or come over here, I'll take you to a tour) Was Istanbul nominated to become the Middle Eastern Cultural Capital in 2010? (As Algiers was in 2007) I could ask you many more rhetorical questions as such, but my only wish is that when establishing a list or so, do not act out of yourself, try to be more objective.
Again, my wish is that you ask that question to as many Turks as possible, since you will only attire their hatred on yourself. (Believe me, you have seen nothing, some of them are just... undescribable), you are still quite comfortable in your edit wars since that category is not known to the public, but if it was, there would come a quite unequal edit war, something that I would definitely not want, as I trust your judgement.
Cheers! -- Eae1983 ( talk) 13:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Kransky, you may not have understood anything that I told you. I cordially invite you to read my post over and over again.
I am not very sure of your good faith either, (since those frantical reverts) although I am neither flagging you nor threatening you like you are doing to me, and again prefer the way of dialogue. Please be more sensitive and calm towards me, knowing that I respected fully your opinions and took an hour of my time to write to you, in a completely non aggressive way.
I do not know Wikipedia very well, nor am an expert with computers, but if there is a kind of "Virtual Court" that we can take our case to, I am ready for it. -- Eae1983 ( talk) 16:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
PS: I would have wanted to know where you are from, or what do feel as your culture, to understand why do you seem to have these ideas.
Aquintero:
Eae1983:
Everybody:
I agree with Kransky, let categorise it to five continents, we would be independent by any further changes by Ban Ki-Moon or another UN organisation. I hope we found long term solution.-- Krokodyl ( talk) 09:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Your quote from the Turkish Embassy in Lebanon reads "By virtue of this geo-strategic setting, Turkey belongs to the Middle East region as well (Did it say "entirely"?). I hope I was clear enough. To the question you were asking, yes Turkey is 66% Asian, Asian but not Middle-Eastern, that as I said, would make 33% of its culture. Anyone knowing enough about the situation of Turkey, would have placed Turkey somewhere else. Asia, Europe, or both. Turks, ideally would prefer figuring in the "Europe" (Rather than Middle-East) box, as Turkey is economically more than European, and would not love to see themselves assigned to a more troublesome cultural subcontinental entity they do not see themselves as fully belonging to. You can read above: Chris j wood supports my ideas, Monsieurdl supports it too, not the mention the boys like İzmir that do so too. We, as Turks or Turk loving people, went through it many times previously in other settings (mostly including non-wikipedia settings in real life) when such things are left to people not knowing Turkey enough, this is what happens. The Western Media is quick to show Turkey only by its 33% "Middle Eastern" side. Resources like wikipedia can potentially help a lot, please (And I beg you pleeeaaase!!) look at the "Turkey" or "Istanbul" articles, as this will really help you.
Although they might have seemed so they were really not, I was telling you how Turks were potentially sensitive on the issue, and you could see for yourself if ever you went there. (I still want to be deflagged and apologies for that one, as I passed hours in front of that stupid computer to try to come up with something constructive, and that was not the treatment I deserved from fellow wikipedians)
I would potentially say "Yes" to a better made and clear cut and non-political continental divide, but what will we do with Istanbul (and Edirne-Andrinople), two cities with significant population that have many and many consulates, and are located on the European side? For Turks to reach such conscensus this very question must be resolved foremost.
You are talking about a conscensus. But, more than you or Aquintero, or maybe another fellow, I do not and did not see anyone else frantically reverting back to the false listing Turkey=Middle East. If we left it the way İzmir it did in the past, I pretty much doubt that anyone would have ever changed it. Now, you see, when I go to the streets here in Istanbul, I don't see pretty much middle-eastern culture, though, someone, on the other side of the world has classified me as "Middle-Eastern". So I go and make the changes according what Turkish people are and what Turkey is, (Although I am sure many Europeans without any or enough knowledge of Turkey would think otherwise, a short trip to Turkey would, I guess, be enough for them). But then what happens? Someone comes and changes back everything to their untrue setting again. Now we are starting to be many defending this very issue, but I want to ask you something: If we ever left these pages in question as they are NOW, who would change them other than you two (or three)? Why don't we try it like that? Look at the embassies of Greece page, since I changed it no random wikipedian came and frantically reverted it back as you would do. You are not asking for a conscensus, you are asking to be personnally convinced. The conscensus is out there, leave it to Wikipedians other you and Aquintero, and see WHAT the real people think. Now who is the Vandal?
I did something that I believed was right, as you did something that you believed was right too. But who lives in Turkey? Who has a better knowledge of it and could be more objective about it? So who is the "Vandal"? The guy in ground zero or the guy at the other side of the world? I want to be deflagged (if that exists) and also to be understood in my objectivity research.
Let's leave it to Wikipedia, and to the Whole World. Let's the three or four of us NOT touch any setting let's leave it exactly as it is now then let's see what happens. There will be the ultimate conscensus. -- Eae1983 ( talk) 12:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Other than that, I fully participate in your ideas of "let's give it a few days to cool down", yes I think its the best thing to do. -- Eae1983 ( talk) 11:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
As per past discussions, and in other forums, I propose following the United Nations geoscheme (see map above) for determining which countries are in which regions. Drilling down to sub-regions (Southern Africa, Micronesia etc) is unnecessary I feel, but the 'Americas' can be easily be divided into 'Northern America' and 'Latin America and the Caribbean'.
Please see these articles to check which countries are in which regions:
Hey kransky, I lately ran into that page: List of diplomatic missions in Greece, as a template for "diplomatical missions in host countries", I know it has been talked about before, but what about doing it that way so we can have a "standardized" version between "host" and "foreign" missions?
Keep up the good work!
Cheers!
-- Eae1983 ( talk) 09:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I know I thought about it actually and as there would be, in a typical "Diplomatic missions in X" a layout as follows:
Capital City - Embassies
A, B, C
City 2 Consulates
A, B
City 3 Consulates etc.
C
We could do it like:
Embassies
A, B, C
Consulates
B, C
Honorary Representations
A
Waiting for your ideas!
-- Eae1983 ( talk) 00:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
User:W_Tanoto has changed Diplomatic missions of Indonesia to reflect the fact that the Indonesian mission to the Holy See is located in Rome. We have stuck to the convention of stating such missions are in the Vatican City, which is in fact incorrect (although the beseiged British Embassy was within the Papal walls during the Second World War). I propose that as part of our revamp of the articles, to match countries to UN Geoscheme continents, we specify that missions to the Holy See (not the Vatican City) are in Rome. Kransky ( talk) 05:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
We have categories for the diplomatic missions of a given state. Category:Diplomatic missions of Italy for example is tagged for articles related to the Italian embassies in Ottawa, Prague and Washington. This should not be confused for the article Diplomatic missions of Italy, which lists all the embassies and provides some coverage.
The original intent was that only articles would be tagged with this category, and not other categories (making them subcategories). As long as the number of subcategories was kept manageable there was no problem.
However recently there has been an explosion in the number of these subcategories. In most cases there is no apparent notable for these subcategories to exist - there may only be one or two articles (often usually to only one stub-class article that gives its address in Ottawa or Washington DC).
Now there is nothing wrong with these articles or subcategories per se, except that they crowd out links to the existing articles on the Category:Diplomatic missions by country homepage.
The previous structure was more logical and intuitive - a user would access articles like Embassy of Mexico in Prague from articles like Diplomatic missions of Mexico linked on Category:Diplomatic missions by country, rather than going to the article from Category:Diplomatic missions of Mexico listed on Category:Diplomatic missions by country. Kransky ( talk) 11:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
What if we included precise locations (cities and/or notable office towers) of consulates in the diplomatic missions articles?
For instance Brazil's Los Angeles-area consulate is in Beverly Hills. It would be listed like this:
How does this look? WhisperToMe ( talk) 00:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Alright:
WhisperToMe ( talk) 22:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
To some extent I agree too. I think that we should put the city in which the consulate actually is in. If for example the Consulate-General of Armenia is in Beverly Hills, then we should put that. I don't think that we should put "Los Angeles (but located in Beverly Hills)," that just would't look professional. Aquintero ( talk) 27 June, 2008 17:48 (UTC)
Much of what appears on this talk page is inappropriate, as much of it is discussing everything but the category. All future discussion, particularly when related to article content, needs to be moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations. -- Россавиа Диалог 06:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_International_relations
![]() | This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This category was nominated for deletion on 29 June 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | Click here to create the mediation request for this article. |
I have compliled listings for most of the countries here. Some people have made contributions, either following my format or doing it their own way. It would be good if we had some consistency in the design, but only if gets some kind of endorsement from other contributors. Any comments? Kransky 22:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Based on advice from several people, I have started to rename the articles (beginning with "A") to follow Wikipedian naming conventions ("Albanian diplomatic missions" becomes "Diplomatic missions of Albania"), with the category tags written so that they are ordered according to the name of the country. Kransky 12:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
In compiling these lists Turkey has been categorised as being part of the Middle East. This is in reflection of the majority of Turkey's landmass and population, including its capital, being situated in Asia, by its cultural heritage being sourced indigenously and from the Middle East rather than from the Greek-Latin tradition, and the perception by Europe that Turkey is not part of Europe (evidenced by its inadmission to the European Union.
Some anonymous contributor with ID address 88.244.70.228 has sought to change entries so that Turkey is listed under Europe. While he or she is passionate about this issue, no explanation has been offered why this change needs to be made. There are Europeans who may have an opposing view why Turkey should not be included.
In case the user at 88.244.70.228 thinks that some kind of anti-Turkish sentiment is at play, I would remind him/her that I wrote the Diplomatic missions of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus article, and defended its inclusion when people wanted it removed.
Could I please have support to reinforce the convention that Turkey is listed under the Middle East, and not Europe, at least not until (say) Turkey joins the European Union or is otherwise generally regarded as a European country.
In the meantime I am reverting all of 88.244.70.228's changes back. Kransky ( talk) 12:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Turkey is neither culturally or historically European. It should be classified as being in Western Asia/The Middle East. Canadian Bobby ( talk) 17:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree, Turkey is in the Middle East, both culturally and physically. It should remain being categorized as such. Aquintero82 ( talk) 15:05, 20 January, 2008 (UTC)
Difficult question. As categorised items it's both, as geography suggest :) But for the sake of uniformity we must make choice and I will prefer Middle East (or even better geographically Asia) as user:Chris j wood above suggest. Middle East is not clear category. I prefer listings by continents than simple alphabetical order. -- Krokodyl ( talk) 19:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I see what has happened, and it is very mind-boggling. First, we must ask two questions:
Is Egypt in Africa or the Middle East? Is Russia European or Asian?
The answer is of course YES, YES, YES and YES. This same question, is Turkey European or the Middle East is of course answered the exact same way, YES and YES. Have those who deny one or the other not heard of the bridge city known as Constantinople/Istanbul or Thrace and Anatolia? Is not Thrace European and Anatolia Asian/Middle Eastern? Are both of those parts, linked by the city above, ALL encompassed within the country known as Turkiye, or Turkey?
To the writer who said Anatolia has no Arabs is incorrect- you know of Antakya and the region that borders Syria? Siirt? Gaziantep? Have you forgotten about 1 million Arabs? To add, Kurdish people are also included in the Middle East, and despite how Turks feel about Kurds, they exist and they cannot be denied. This is about numbers, not about past grudges or present political problems.
Turkey can be BOTH and IS both- historically, geographically, totally both. Why start a fight, because of naationalism? Petty pride? Denials for a cause? Come on- be better than that. Monsieurdl mon talk- mon contribs 00:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
There are several arguments in favour of putting Turkey in the "Middle East" category. In my opinion, however, Turkey should be listet as a European country. Reason 1: Turkey is an official EU candidate country. Reason 2: Anatolia is often referred to as the bridge between Europe and Asia. Cyprus, situated southeast of Turkey/Anatolia is part of the European Union, why, then, should Turkey not be able to be a part of Europe? -- Andreas Ehrmann ( talk) 16:11, 06 February 2008 (CET)
85.100.85.108 has now got a name ( User:Izmir lee) and decided to reorganise the Diplomatic Missions by Country articles.. I would have expected him to get a consensus first from other writers, or perhaps even think of reasons why we categorise by continent do but... hey... this is a democracy, and he wanted to be bold.
In the meantime I have reverted the alphabetical change. If Izmir lee wants, he can move Turkey to Asia. But if anybody wants a vote on changing the formatting, which would mean we will no longer be able to compare diplomatic networks within specific regions, just to please some kid who only became a Wikipedia user yesterday, please note it is something I Strongly oppose Kransky ( talk) 11:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Kransky... Question: do you HATE Turkey and Turks?? I see that you consider Armenia as "Europe" but not Turkey, that means your borders of Europe are religion based (ie, christianity) and not geographical. Well I do not know if you have been to Turkey AND any State you name as "Middle Eastern", like Syria or Iraq prior to this date, which I would gladly invite you to, since it will clarify your ideas. I do not know from where you look at things but I see some lack of information, like your post on the Cyprus issue saying "I understand that Greeks are very sensitive on the issue, since if some foreign invader came to my homeland carved up a new country and treated it like a state"... meaning that Cyprus was NOT home to any Turks?
Please let's stop that pretty lame edit war on the diplomatical missions, as Turks are pretty sensitive on it. A region named the "Middle East" is not a continent like Asia or Europe or Antarctica, but is a political Entity, that is still not well defined. Some people include Egypt, (Africa) some people Afghanistan, (Central Asia) some people both some people neither some go as far as including Algeria and for example excluding Israel. If you make such sub-continental groups, then you must create a separate one for "Southeast Asia" or "Central America" and so forth, each with non-defined borders, and as you could guess, we could not get away with it as we would constantly be harassed by Nicaraguans or Indonesians claiming our listscarry false information
When it comes to Turkey, we are speaking of a state that is candidate for EU membership, a very prosperous economy, a member of the OECD and a permanent participant to the UEFA and to organisations such as the Eurovision. The history of Turkey and the Ottoman Empire has shaped Europe as much as it has shaped Western Asia. If you ask citizens of Turkey, they will, for the majority , tell you that they are either feeling "European", "Asian-Anatolian", or neither or both (but mostly not belonging to some imaginary political entity named "the Middle East" though). As it is pretty unfair to place Turkey in one category, without pretty much prior knowledge of Turkey or the Turks, it is also pointless to coin something on them they do not even see themselves as.
I would personnally be OK with a double-representation of Turkey on those lists, (like on the UN lists) together with other bi-continental countries such as Russia, with an icon-figuration in both Asia and Europe. (Definitely not in the Middle-East)
Since you are the Creator of those lists, with all the respect we owe you, you have a great part in the responsability to think of a viable solution that goes beyond your own set of thought, or, if you do not want to think about it, I can bring it up to the WikiProject Turkey page and we can discuss it all together.
Cheers!
-- Eae1983 ( talk) 10:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Quote: "In compiling these lists Turkey has been categorised as being part of the Middle East. This is in reflection of the majority of Turkey's landmass and population, including its capital, being situated in Asia, by its cultural heritage being sourced indigenously and from the Middle East rather than from the Greek-Latin tradition, and the perception by Europe that Turkey is not part of Europe (evidenced by its inadmission to the European Union."
First of all, as we can see, your opinions whether Turkey should be included in one category or the other (namely here the "middle east" or europe) is not based on any factual information, but your personnal opinion.. (ie, "Turkey is not part of Europe (evidenced by its inadmission to the European Union." or by "its cultural heritage being sourced indigenously and from the Middle East rather than from the Greek-Latin tradition" -oh i love that one, what will you do about the greek roman and byzantine heritage, nonetheless the central asian heritage? these questions could be so easily answered if you looked at architecture, cuisine, and living habits of Turkey and Turks which you obviously do not enough about...- now when it comes to landmass and population, 13 millons of 70 live in the European side of the Bosphorous, that is also home to ALL consulates of Istanbul.
Now that population is way superior to whole countries such as Albania or Macedonia etc, who are entirely in Europe. The land, being around 15% in Europe, is still 15%, and NOT 0% compared to other countries such as Armenia, Azerbaijan or Cyprus. Now whether you have chosen to include the Ex-USSR states entirely in Europe is ALSO your personnal choice, and does not reflect the true nature of things, such as Armenia being Western-Asian, or placing Turkey into continent that you name "The Middle East" that does not officially exist.
About doing an article about the TRNC missions, and using it for your urguments that you do not "hate" turkey... hum hum.. remember, greeks were really "sensitive" on the "issue that someone came and carved THEIR" homeland.. hum hum hum... Yes indeed, I think you do not "Hate" Turkey, but actually, you do not know ENOUGH about Turkey or the Turkish Culture. I gladly invite you to search about Turkey (Wikipedia, although -sometimes- innaccurate, is a great source of general culture) and of course, you are also invited to visit the Beautiful and Magnificient (middle-easetern, asian, european, greek, roman, ottoman (?) ) city of Istanbul...
Well, about getting support whether Turkey is "European or Middle-Eastern" from other Wikipedians, that mostly do not even know or care about Turkey, is, i find, pointless. Let's think of an example: Spain, a European country, with some Arab heritage that makes up today roughly around 15% or arguably 10% of its culture. If the common western european mass decided unanimously (Except the elite) that spain was "Arab but not European" then, on lists like this, Spain would be put under let's say "North Africa" but not Europe. Of course, that would not change anything from the fact that yes, Spain IS European, but this fact would only be known to the Intellectual Elite.
About me hating the Middle-East.. of course not. (Although I find the term "Made-Up" and open to interpretation or controversy) but you must be careful when assuming that Turkey's Heritage is "Middle Eastern" as it is not. Turkey's cultural heritage, according to different regions and populations and living habits, would be, according to my analyses, 33% European, 33% As Chris J Wood would point it out Central Asian and 33% Middle Eastern, in a perfect and harmonious mix. So if you would pretend putting Turkey in "Europe" would be wrong, putting the country under "Middle East" or anything such would be as wrong, reason why AT LEAST 66% of the Turkish population would get offended.
Now when you say "Turkey figures in the "Middle East" article, may I ask you what would you think about that map:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Europe_countries_map_en.png
Or that one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Languages_of_Europe.svg
Even this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Europe_gdp_map-1-.png
Oohhh that one too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Europe_population_growth_2006.png
Of course, that one also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Europe_biogeography_countries.svg
The commonality between all these maps is that they figure under the "Europe" article (ohh!), a nice and neat Wikipedia article that also has quotes such as:
"Because of sociopolitical and cultural differences, there are various descriptions of Europe's boundary; in some sources, some territories are not included in Europe, while other sources include them. For instance, geographers from Russia and other post-Soviet states generally include the Urals in Europe while including Caucasia in Asia. Similarly, numerous geographers consider Azerbaijan's and Armenia's southern border with Iran and Turkey's southern and eastern border with Syria, Iraq and Iran as the boundary between Asia and Europe because of political and cultural reasons. In the same way, despite being close to Asia and Africa, the Mediterranean islands of Cyprus and Malta are considered part of Europe."
(Woops, I quoted from Wikipedia!)
By the way, rest assured, I can give you thousands of maps or quotes including Turkey as in the Regional Settings such as "Europe", "Asia", Middle East" "Balkans" "Black Sea" etc. etc. thruth is that Turkey, someway or another belongs to all of them, and this geocultural fact is not determinable nor by you nor by me.
I am asking you a last time? Is Istanbul a Middle Eastern city? (look at the "Istanbul" article, or come over here, I'll take you to a tour) Was Istanbul nominated to become the Middle Eastern Cultural Capital in 2010? (As Algiers was in 2007) I could ask you many more rhetorical questions as such, but my only wish is that when establishing a list or so, do not act out of yourself, try to be more objective.
Again, my wish is that you ask that question to as many Turks as possible, since you will only attire their hatred on yourself. (Believe me, you have seen nothing, some of them are just... undescribable), you are still quite comfortable in your edit wars since that category is not known to the public, but if it was, there would come a quite unequal edit war, something that I would definitely not want, as I trust your judgement.
Cheers! -- Eae1983 ( talk) 13:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Kransky, you may not have understood anything that I told you. I cordially invite you to read my post over and over again.
I am not very sure of your good faith either, (since those frantical reverts) although I am neither flagging you nor threatening you like you are doing to me, and again prefer the way of dialogue. Please be more sensitive and calm towards me, knowing that I respected fully your opinions and took an hour of my time to write to you, in a completely non aggressive way.
I do not know Wikipedia very well, nor am an expert with computers, but if there is a kind of "Virtual Court" that we can take our case to, I am ready for it. -- Eae1983 ( talk) 16:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
PS: I would have wanted to know where you are from, or what do feel as your culture, to understand why do you seem to have these ideas.
Aquintero:
Eae1983:
Everybody:
I agree with Kransky, let categorise it to five continents, we would be independent by any further changes by Ban Ki-Moon or another UN organisation. I hope we found long term solution.-- Krokodyl ( talk) 09:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Your quote from the Turkish Embassy in Lebanon reads "By virtue of this geo-strategic setting, Turkey belongs to the Middle East region as well (Did it say "entirely"?). I hope I was clear enough. To the question you were asking, yes Turkey is 66% Asian, Asian but not Middle-Eastern, that as I said, would make 33% of its culture. Anyone knowing enough about the situation of Turkey, would have placed Turkey somewhere else. Asia, Europe, or both. Turks, ideally would prefer figuring in the "Europe" (Rather than Middle-East) box, as Turkey is economically more than European, and would not love to see themselves assigned to a more troublesome cultural subcontinental entity they do not see themselves as fully belonging to. You can read above: Chris j wood supports my ideas, Monsieurdl supports it too, not the mention the boys like İzmir that do so too. We, as Turks or Turk loving people, went through it many times previously in other settings (mostly including non-wikipedia settings in real life) when such things are left to people not knowing Turkey enough, this is what happens. The Western Media is quick to show Turkey only by its 33% "Middle Eastern" side. Resources like wikipedia can potentially help a lot, please (And I beg you pleeeaaase!!) look at the "Turkey" or "Istanbul" articles, as this will really help you.
Although they might have seemed so they were really not, I was telling you how Turks were potentially sensitive on the issue, and you could see for yourself if ever you went there. (I still want to be deflagged and apologies for that one, as I passed hours in front of that stupid computer to try to come up with something constructive, and that was not the treatment I deserved from fellow wikipedians)
I would potentially say "Yes" to a better made and clear cut and non-political continental divide, but what will we do with Istanbul (and Edirne-Andrinople), two cities with significant population that have many and many consulates, and are located on the European side? For Turks to reach such conscensus this very question must be resolved foremost.
You are talking about a conscensus. But, more than you or Aquintero, or maybe another fellow, I do not and did not see anyone else frantically reverting back to the false listing Turkey=Middle East. If we left it the way İzmir it did in the past, I pretty much doubt that anyone would have ever changed it. Now, you see, when I go to the streets here in Istanbul, I don't see pretty much middle-eastern culture, though, someone, on the other side of the world has classified me as "Middle-Eastern". So I go and make the changes according what Turkish people are and what Turkey is, (Although I am sure many Europeans without any or enough knowledge of Turkey would think otherwise, a short trip to Turkey would, I guess, be enough for them). But then what happens? Someone comes and changes back everything to their untrue setting again. Now we are starting to be many defending this very issue, but I want to ask you something: If we ever left these pages in question as they are NOW, who would change them other than you two (or three)? Why don't we try it like that? Look at the embassies of Greece page, since I changed it no random wikipedian came and frantically reverted it back as you would do. You are not asking for a conscensus, you are asking to be personnally convinced. The conscensus is out there, leave it to Wikipedians other you and Aquintero, and see WHAT the real people think. Now who is the Vandal?
I did something that I believed was right, as you did something that you believed was right too. But who lives in Turkey? Who has a better knowledge of it and could be more objective about it? So who is the "Vandal"? The guy in ground zero or the guy at the other side of the world? I want to be deflagged (if that exists) and also to be understood in my objectivity research.
Let's leave it to Wikipedia, and to the Whole World. Let's the three or four of us NOT touch any setting let's leave it exactly as it is now then let's see what happens. There will be the ultimate conscensus. -- Eae1983 ( talk) 12:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Other than that, I fully participate in your ideas of "let's give it a few days to cool down", yes I think its the best thing to do. -- Eae1983 ( talk) 11:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
As per past discussions, and in other forums, I propose following the United Nations geoscheme (see map above) for determining which countries are in which regions. Drilling down to sub-regions (Southern Africa, Micronesia etc) is unnecessary I feel, but the 'Americas' can be easily be divided into 'Northern America' and 'Latin America and the Caribbean'.
Please see these articles to check which countries are in which regions:
Hey kransky, I lately ran into that page: List of diplomatic missions in Greece, as a template for "diplomatical missions in host countries", I know it has been talked about before, but what about doing it that way so we can have a "standardized" version between "host" and "foreign" missions?
Keep up the good work!
Cheers!
-- Eae1983 ( talk) 09:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I know I thought about it actually and as there would be, in a typical "Diplomatic missions in X" a layout as follows:
Capital City - Embassies
A, B, C
City 2 Consulates
A, B
City 3 Consulates etc.
C
We could do it like:
Embassies
A, B, C
Consulates
B, C
Honorary Representations
A
Waiting for your ideas!
-- Eae1983 ( talk) 00:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
User:W_Tanoto has changed Diplomatic missions of Indonesia to reflect the fact that the Indonesian mission to the Holy See is located in Rome. We have stuck to the convention of stating such missions are in the Vatican City, which is in fact incorrect (although the beseiged British Embassy was within the Papal walls during the Second World War). I propose that as part of our revamp of the articles, to match countries to UN Geoscheme continents, we specify that missions to the Holy See (not the Vatican City) are in Rome. Kransky ( talk) 05:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
We have categories for the diplomatic missions of a given state. Category:Diplomatic missions of Italy for example is tagged for articles related to the Italian embassies in Ottawa, Prague and Washington. This should not be confused for the article Diplomatic missions of Italy, which lists all the embassies and provides some coverage.
The original intent was that only articles would be tagged with this category, and not other categories (making them subcategories). As long as the number of subcategories was kept manageable there was no problem.
However recently there has been an explosion in the number of these subcategories. In most cases there is no apparent notable for these subcategories to exist - there may only be one or two articles (often usually to only one stub-class article that gives its address in Ottawa or Washington DC).
Now there is nothing wrong with these articles or subcategories per se, except that they crowd out links to the existing articles on the Category:Diplomatic missions by country homepage.
The previous structure was more logical and intuitive - a user would access articles like Embassy of Mexico in Prague from articles like Diplomatic missions of Mexico linked on Category:Diplomatic missions by country, rather than going to the article from Category:Diplomatic missions of Mexico listed on Category:Diplomatic missions by country. Kransky ( talk) 11:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
What if we included precise locations (cities and/or notable office towers) of consulates in the diplomatic missions articles?
For instance Brazil's Los Angeles-area consulate is in Beverly Hills. It would be listed like this:
How does this look? WhisperToMe ( talk) 00:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Alright:
WhisperToMe ( talk) 22:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
To some extent I agree too. I think that we should put the city in which the consulate actually is in. If for example the Consulate-General of Armenia is in Beverly Hills, then we should put that. I don't think that we should put "Los Angeles (but located in Beverly Hills)," that just would't look professional. Aquintero ( talk) 27 June, 2008 17:48 (UTC)
Much of what appears on this talk page is inappropriate, as much of it is discussing everything but the category. All future discussion, particularly when related to article content, needs to be moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations. -- Россавиа Диалог 06:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_International_relations