This category is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles
This category is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
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? Kransky22:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Kransky12:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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)
I'm confused. AFAICS, the category to which this talk is attached says absolutely nothing about whether Turkey is in Europe, the Middle East or (for that matter) Antarctica. All it says with regard to Turkey is that there is an article called Diplomatic missions of Turkey. And according to the category history User:88.244.70.228 has never edited this category, so I don't see how Kransky can have reverted his changes. What am I missing?. -- Chris j wood (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. The actual debate is about the structure of the linked articles. I think the structure that has been used is very unfortunate, especially in using the term Middle East which I don't think has any formal definition. It would have been better to stick to the the standard continental definitions of Europe and Asia. On that basis an embassy in Ankara would conventionally be seen as being in Asia, whilst a consulate in Istanbul would be in Europe. As there is no formal definition of the term Middle East, the argument as to whether somewhere is in Europe or the Middle East is pretty meaningless; it is quite reasonable to argue it is in both. So the basic problem is not the debate on whether Turkey is in Europe or the Middle East; it is rather that the list design is broken because it tries to use non-exclusive terms in an exclusive way. My suggestion would be to avoid all this grief by simply listing all countries in alphabetic order. -- Chris j wood (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Map of the Middle EastFirst of all I'm not accusing you of anti-Turkish. But it's very understandable. Turkey is a European country. Because İstanbul had chosen European Capital of Culture2010!(According to the official EU website[1]) And please tell me what's the distance between İstanbul and Tehran or Ankara and Riyadh! Is the Middle East as big as a continent?? It's only a small region contains Bahrain · Egypt · Iraq · Israel · Jordan · Kuwait · Lebanon · Oman · Palestinian territories · Qatar · Saudi Arabia · Syria · United Arab Emirates · Yemen You can't put Turkey in the Middle East. If you dislike or hate Turkey and jealous of it every second that you think it is in Europe, please put it in Asia but not into the Middle East! Because most of Arab countries in the Middle East except Israel. And don't forget that Turkey is a candidate country to EU!
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)[reply]
Look at this picture! Can you see Turkey in this map?? No! Because admins of wikipedia don't think that Turkey is in The Middle East but you have some wrong thoughts! Turkey is in Europe and Asia but it's Asian part is not in the Middle East it is in The Anatolia! The Middle East is an Arab region! Turkey isn't an Arab country! Do something immediately according to the admins of wikipedia! Not according to yourself! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.85.108 (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Admins don't determine Wikipedia content. Writers decide - they just provide the guidelines which promote discussion, objectivity, democracy and good writing.
(2) I am not denying that Turkey has territory in Europe. I am not denying that it has historical ties with Europe, or that its future is bound to Europe's fortunes. I am aware of its membership of the OSCE and other organisations which help define Turkey's European characteristics.
(3) However, in this case we have to decide if Turkey is to be listed under Europe or the Middle East (or Asia?). The case that I and others have provided suggest that Turkey's listing as Middle Eastern is more compelling.
(4) It is commonly assumed that the geographic divide between Asia and Europe is made at the Bosporus (see the Wikipedia article). Since only a very small portion of Turkey's population and territory is located on the European side, it would not be reasonable to say Turkey is European rather than any other continent.
(5) The Middle East is not exclusively Arab. Israel and Iran are in the Middle East, but are not Arab. Conversely, Algeria is Arab but three thousand kilometres west of the Suez. Just because Turkey isn't Arab doesn't mean it does not belong in the Middle East.
(6) Should Turkey be classified as Asian then? After all, the word Asia comes from Ασί, in reference to Anatolia. This could be a possible, but messy comprimise, since it would be weird to have Iran classified as the Middle East and Turkey not. Any opinion?
Whilst agreeing with Kransky's measured approach above, I personally think that on balance Turkey is not in the Middle East. Our own article on Turkey defines it as a Eurasian country heavily influenced by both east and west. Whilst the Middle East certainly has had a strong influence, I think that the eastern part of Turkey is more Central Asian than it is Middle Eastern. Incidentally I'd say the same of Iran. But as I said before, the definition of the term Middle Eastern is not an exclusive one, and there are overlaps between the Middle East and Asia and Africa (and possibly Europe). For example the map above shows Egypt in the Middle East (which IMHO it is), but it is also undoubtedly in Africa. Bottom line is that these arguments are rather futile, because there is no correct answer. And as we are only arguing about a list structure (as opposed to the actual textual definition of where Turkey is according to its own article), I'd suggest the sensible thing to do is to agree to disagree, and reformat the lists in a non-controversial fashion. -- Chris j wood (talk) 11:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reformating 185 articles so that all countries are listed alphabetically, or even just abolishing the Middle East category and slotting them all as Asian, would be a massive task and would make it harder to compare trends within regions. Somehow I seem to be unable to muster the inclination to spend several man hours to placiate the sensibilities of an anonymous user. Kransky (talk) 11:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry!! I'll put all the 185 articles in alphabetical order. And I'm not an anonymous user any more! I'll create a new account!
Let see. Unless you start to sign your comments and you really sign into account you're an anonymous user. Usually we dont delete in discussion pages!! --Krokodyl (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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)
Thanks for your contribution. I am tempted to remove the Middle East category altogether and categorise countries according to the UN Geocode (see below), to avoid any debates. I think an objective assessment of geography, not a subjective assessment of economics/politics/culture should be the criteria. Under the Geocode Turkey is listed under 'Asia', since it is where the capital and bulk of Turkey's population resides, and breaking up transcontinental countries would reduce the usefulness of the data. I am awaiting a consensus on the matter before proceeding, which would necessitate change to around 185 articles. Kransky (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 opposeKransky (talk) 11:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Map of the Middle East You said "we can see where countries chose to place their missions in particular regions compared with other areas". But you put all the missions in Turkey to the Middle East! İstanbul is in Europe and Ankara is in Asia! Not in the Middle East! Look at this map again! Turkey isn't in the Middle East!So put the missions in Europe which are in İstanbul and put the missions in Asia which are in Ankara, İzmir and other cities! Otherwise I'll put them in alphabetical order again or put turkey in Europe!!! -- Izmir lee (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Izmir, you are obviously new to Wikipedia and unaware of the rules and processes for changing articles. I have been patient with you and have explained how changes are made. Now let other people contribute their views. Your idea of splitting up countries might satisfy your own personal agenda, but it would ruin the articles if we cannot compare diplomatic networks within a transcontinental country. I will ask an admin to help you understand how things are done in Wikipedia Kransky (talk) 12:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kransky is correct. These categories and sections are rather painstakingly put together by people who are very interested in the subject matter and, generally, don't take kindly to random people popping up and messing with them in a way that is inconsistent with the established protocols. If Izmir wishes to overhaul this section, consensus should be sought before unilaterally making changes. Ignoring everybody's objections does no one any service and will lead to no good end.
This section is, I would say, extremely fair to everybody in that no distinction is made between states that are recognized by one state or by all. Pariah, pseudo-state or everybody's golden boy, if you've got a mission, we'll list it. As Kranksy says, no agenda should be advanced here. This isn't the place for it.
I'm not new to Wikipedia but I've just created a new account! I didn't think you are an anti-Turkish but I realised that you are an anti-Turkish! I won't care you anymore! Here is not your kingdom and I'm not your slave! I'll do what I want to do! And I want to ask you a question. Where are you from?? - Izmir lee (talk) 12:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Izmir, please stay polite to other editors and also stay within Wikipedia guidelines. You may not do whatever you want but you may be bold staying within the guidelines. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm from Greece and I know that Turkey is in Europe because it's our neighbour. And it's a candidate country to EU. İstanbul is the European Capital for Culture 2010. And I saw the map in this page. Turkey isn't in the Middle East. - Lokum (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Map of the Middle East Correct me if I'm wrong, but I just typed in Middle East in Wikipedia and the article, map and sections state that Turkey is within the Middle East. Yes, a small part of it is in Europe, but the majority is in Asia. I agree, we need to have a unilateral consesus before changes are made. It is unfair to change 184 articles just to please a new teenage user. I also believe that Izmir lee has no right to speak to any members that way, and should be diplomatic with his use of language.
I personally do not believe Turkey to be European. Physically and culturally Turkey is in Asia/Middle East. And if we do come to a concesus that we should move Turkey out of the Middle East then I opt it to be moved to Asia. IF this is the case, then should we also begin to move Egypt and Russia to Asia because they both have land mass in two different continents? Aquinterotalk16:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lokum/Izmir, this must be the most pathetic attempt at puppetsockery I have ever seen. But my heart is not filled with disgust, nor is my head filled with anger, for the lame attempt of impersonating somebody from a neighbouring country (one Turkey has fought with for millenia) is so funny my lungs are filled with mirth. I cry tears of laughter at the comedy and irony. Oh, the follies of youth...Kransky (talk) 09:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aquintero, the question is not "Is Turkey in Europe?", but "if there is a choice between Asia, Europe or the Middle East, where should Turkey be?". Culturally Turkey is a mix between all three areas, and it is a question that is debated actively in Turkish civil life. Kransky (talk) 09:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I could also you ask the question "do you hate the Middle East?" because you seem so sensitive about Turkey's inclusion in this region, but I won't because it is not central to your issues. Note that I wrote Diplomatic missions of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus on the sole criteria that at least one sovereign country recognises it, despite this being sensitive issue to Greeks and Cypriots (and requiring me to defend its inclusion).
The question we are asking is not "Is Turkey in Europe?" or "Is Turkey in the Middle East?" but "if we are to pick one region to place Turkey should it be in Europe or in the Middle East?". The discussion is overwhelmingly in favour of categorising Turkey as not in Europe. Ankara isn't in the European part. Most Turks don't live in the European part. It has nothing to do with religion, economic development, EU membership or whether or not Turkey participates in the Eurovision Song Contest. The Middle East article concurs that Turkey is part of the Middle East. As for Armenia's inclusion in Europe, I included it along with all successor states to the USSR.
Eliminating the category "Middle East" (or all continents altogether) or splitting up transcontinental countries might be a politically correct solution, but at the cost of making the articles less useful (by not being able to check networks within continents).
Issues that cover all articles should strictly be discussed only in WikiProject International relations template. I wouldn't want to maintain 185 articles to accomodate the individual comprimises to settle, for example, Arab/Israel or Taiwan/China debates. Kransky (talk) 12:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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:
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.
Eae1983, I am not in a time zone in which I can respond to whatever comments you have to this. I request that you hold off making changes until this is decided. Some quick comments:
Never EVER threaten another Wikipedian.
Never EVER threaten an Edit War
I have flagged you for vandalism and not assuming good faith. Please lets get this argument settled first, in a cooperative atmosphere.
I do not own the articles. As you can see on this page, other people have contributed to this debate, and may have opinions that agree or disagree with whatever we agree or disagree on.
Regions are intended to be approximate, based more on geography and irrespective of culture or sovereignty. Australia is in the same region as Fiji. India is in the same region as South Korea. Canada is in the same region as Jamaica.
Do not patronise other Wikipedians. We don't claim perfect knowledge of Turkey (or Greece, or Cyprus or Armenia or Europe or wherever else). But if we wrote our articles exactly the way you want we would be undoubtedly be criticised by other groups for not supporting whatever interpretations of history other groups have. We are not here to take sides, nor are we here to applease.
It is not my personal opinion that the bulk of Turkey's population and landmass are not in Europe. It is a fact.
The question then is in which region is this other portion. The Middle East, or Asia? On this point I have an open mind. Other people may think it is in one or the other. Others may say if Turkey is in Asia, then other countries should be included or not. And may others would not want to waste time reediting articles just to satisfy whatever is politically expedient.
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 threatening you in any sort, just told you that your action *could* generate flame and hatred from people NOT like me who will not sit and discuss. (I kinda expect apologies for that)
I did not threaten at all an edit war, I referenced you to the previous edit wars you had with users such as İzmir. (and I expect apologies for that one too, as it is not very much pleasant to see from someone that has many intellectual contributions such as yourself)
You accuse me (according to you) of Vandalizing according to my bias and my personal opinion when I am only (according to me) protecting factual information from your geopolitical bias. Then if you put Turkey or Sri Lanka or whatever country to an imaginary place the citizens of it do not feel themselves belonging to, you, that after correction by Sri Lankans or Turks, your edits could be ALSO seen as vandalism. (Each time that ANY Turk changes that contested geographical position, you seem to frantically revert it, now what is that?) One must understand that these facts are very much contested (Where is Turkey, Where is Cyprus etc.) that means according to my knowledge that if you establish your continent lists as "cultural" or "political" such as placing a factually non existing "Middle East" element or placing Armenia and Azerbaycan in Europe, THEN and only then Turkey belongs to Europe. If you established 5 clearly cut continents such as N. America S.America Asia Africa and Europe, then Turkey would at 90% go to Asia, but, from what I see, your continental divisions ane not geographical but political, in which case Turkey goes to Europe.
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)[reply]
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.
This seems to have turned into a regular routine. Eae1983, why are you bringing this up again? Have you not read all that has been written above? Is this to be an endless debate? Yes, Turkey has land on continental Europe, but the majority of it is in continental Asia. You say that many Turks would be offended if they were considered to be part of the "Middle East." Why then does the website of the Turkish Embassy in Lebanon state that "By virtue of this geo-strategic setting, Turkey belongs to the Middle East region as well." (Embassy of Turkey in Lebanon)
Since you mentioned that Turkey is 33% European, 33% Central Asian and 33% Middle Eastern, then wouldn't 66% of the population be offended to be considered European as well? Wouldn't that make Turkey 66% Asian? Turkey should be left where it is in the Diplomatic Missions articles. We should not have to change it because of one or two people protesting it. Eae1983, please kindly drop the subject, and lets move on. Aquintero (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aquintero:
Thank you for your contribution. However I do not believe the debate has been settled yet. Previously with Izmat he ran off and made the changes before anything was agreed, destroying any comprimise or goodwill that was being made. Eae1983 is a bit more mature, and the Turkish position deserves a better advocate than Izmat.
Eae1983:
Well, the statements you made suggested you would introduce this in a Turkey specific forum, rather than in a "multilateral" forum that represents neutral ground, sounded like a threat. The articles belongs in the International Relations project, and not with any one country's project page.
On vandalism, I am asking you to defer making changes until we have sought a consensus from other users. If you continue after being politely asked not to, it is vandalism, so I 'red carded' you.
My citizenship or whatever I feel is my background is irrelevant. My sole motivation is to protect the integrity of these articles.
Everybody:
Okay...lets try to find a solution to this impasse. I propose that the articles get reorganised according to the United Nations geoscheme, which places entire countries in specific continents. Airline destination generally articles follow its categorisation, and this practice would be in line with Wikipedia's principles of consistency. I don't know if we should just categorise by the five regions (Africa, Americas, Asia, Europe, Oceania), or the 20 sub-regions (Polynesia, Southern Asia, Middle Africa etc). Turkey (all of Turkey) is classified as being in the "Asia" region, and more specifically, the "Western Asia" sub-region. If anybody is then later unhappy with us putting country X with country Y they can complain to Ban Ki-Moon about it, not us.
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)[reply]
I would add that if we only broke up Americas into (a) North and Central America and the Caribbean, and (b) South America, we will have exactly the divisions we currently have. The only changes necessary would be to move Turkey, all Middle Eastern countries, the Caucusus countries and the 'stans' to Asia. Kransky (talk) 09:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aquintero and Kransky:
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.
The threat accusations:
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)
The new setting as proposed by Kransky:
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.
To the Vandalism accusations:
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.
My solution (why not):
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)[reply]
On not signing my name on your talk page.
There is nothing indicating under the guidelines that suggest warning templates need to be signed. They are not a formal system that you have to use: they are a shortcut to typing, nothing more. You are not supposed to remove them, but because you (a) stopped making the changes and (b) you are not assuming bad faith as you were at the beginning, they need not remain.
On accusations of vandalism
Ok, you are right on this point. You may be "stubborn" but you are not a vandal. Apology? Well, your decision not to assume good faith makes me reluctant to feel contrite, especially after your coolness to my concession.
On the threat accusations
Writers are responsible for communicating their messages carefully - listeners are not responsible if they misunderstanding something that appears at a veiled threat. You cannot make a statement that sounds threatening to win a concession if the other guys back down, or to claim it wasn't a threat if he doesn't.
No they don't. Chris wants the matter resolved by listing countries in alphabetical order, something I oppose since it would reduce the usefulness of the articles. Monsieurdl is baffled by this nationalism and the Turks denying an Arab link in Antakya (not that it matters in determining where Turkey is).
On my comprimise
I am glad that you seem to have some interest in it. But I am against the idea of breaking up transcontinental countries. It makes it harder to compare diplomatic networks within one country. And it would be a lot of work to do, when it would be simpler for you to acknowledge that we categorise according to geography, and not according to culture or society (polite comment: calling the Middle East a "troublesome cultural subcontinental entity" isn't likely to help your argument).
On your solution
Well, just leaving it alone for a few days may cool tempers and allow us to get a perspective may help. I think however it should be resolved ultimately. Please note that this project is a truly collaborative project, with contributors in Poland, New Zealand, Canada, Japan and elsewhere trying to keep the articles consistent, accurate, up-to-date and open to new ideas. We are not going to please everybody! Kransky (talk) 11:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kransky, Chris j wood and Monsieurdl are supporting my ideas not in "including Turkey under Europe" but in "NOT including Turkey under Middle East" though yes Turkey, as I or monsieurdl or anyone can see, has some Middle Eastern Culture (Arabs of Mardin and Antakya, and obviously the Kurds) which is not all of its culture. Again, please read things carefully. (nb. monsieurdl is also "baffled" by your stubbornness of forcefully including Turkey under "Middle East") You created these articles, though as you said previously you do not own them, and I really do not understand not only that I was flagged for something I did not do, (Vandalism) but also your majestical approach as " You are not supposed to remove them, but because you (a) stopped making the changes and (b) you are not assuming bad faith as you were at the beginning, they need not remain" when anything I was doing was perfectly "wiki-legal". I was thinking of going and seeing an administrator about these, but again, as I was thaught in my culture, I will forgive and forget.
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)[reply]
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:
Subregions of Europe (several Central Asian and Caucusus states should be moved to Asia)
I think you have found a great compromise and, as mentioned earlier, I am able to help with making the changes to the Diplomatic Mission's pages - if thats what we decide. ◈ ithinkhelikesit ◈ 17:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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?
Other people have been working on the Diplomatic missions in X articles and should be consulted. In these articles missions are listed by hosted cities, not continents/countries, so I don't know how the two kinds of articles can really be standardised. Kransky (talk) 10:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know I thought about it actually and as there would be, in a typical "Diplomatic missions in X" a layout as follows:
Well Eae, there are already such articles for 162 countries, listed under Category:Diplomatic missions by host country. They roughly follow the format you suggested. You might want to speak to some of the people like Karrath, Aquineo, Canadianbobby etc and bring up your suggestions. Kransky (talk) 05:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
(a) the suburb where a particular diplomatic mission is located is hardly a notable fact. If there is something special about the location of a particular mission (say, it used to share the garden of Mozart's summer residence), then maybe it deserves its own article.
(b) I do not think that regular contributors to these articles are disposed to keeping this list current. Embassies change address each day, and unlike the actual opening of an embassy it does not usually get reported.
(c) Wikipedia is not a directory - which is one reason why these articles almost got deleted when they were first developed two years ago. Adding suburbs without context would make these articles appear more like directories.
(d) It has taken two years to produce the articles that exist today. A huge amount of work would need to be expended to implement the changes suggested by WhisperToMe. We may easily get tired doing the necessary research and changes before completing the change. Consistency is important and I do not think we should make changes unless they can be made to all articles.
(e) We risk bringing in bias. These articles have contributors in Poland, Czech Republic, Australia, the United States, Canada and elsewhere, but not everywhere. We are not going to be able to apply the same level of accuracy to all countries, and thus all articles.
(f) Whilst accuracy is important, without context it becomes pendantry. WhisperToMe states that there is no Pakistani consulate in Houston, but there is one in nearby Harris Country. I think we can safely assume that if a consulate exists in a particular geographical unit that is constituent to a major city, then it pertains to that major city.
1. All U.S.A. counties and municipal corporations, as well as equivalents in other countries are considered to be notable on Wikipedia. Therefore mentioning the actual city location would be notable. On the other hand, streets and non-notable buildings would not be mentioned as most streets and buildings are not notable. Here is a case in point: Beverly Hills, location of four LA-area consulates, is a very prominent, notable city in its own right. The only other USA case that I know of a "suburb" having the actual consulate is Pakistan.
2. Wikipedia is considered to be a continual work-in-progress (This essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress is an interpretation of the idea): The lists themselves should all be labeled "As of [date]" and that solves the problem. If something may be outdated the user will know it as such upon seeing the date and seek to update it.
3. Since Wikipedia is not a directory, this means that actual addresses would not be listed for each and every consulate, nor would phone numbers be listed.
4. A huge amount of work could be required; as stated before Wikipedia is a continuous work in progress, so this is not necessarily a problem.
5. While consulates and embassies change addresses periodically, they usually do not change locations to other cities.
6. Regarding "World-view" and "systemic bias" there actually is a project that focuses on bridging the gap as much as possible. While WP:V and other policies make fleshing out detail easier for some locations than others, I think the best way to deal with this is to add specific locations for whatever is possible.
7. While it does pertain to the major city, it also pertains to the suburb as the consulate generates tax revenue and jobs for the particular suburb.
I agree with Whisper here. In my opinion, as an outsider, this would not create bias, or be perceived as pedantry. I have no concerns, and thus support the proposal. PeterSymonds(talk)23:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)
Ok...I am seeing some warming to WhisperToMe's proposal.
There are two imperatives at play - to keep Wikipedia a work in progress, but also to keep consistency. Is WhispertoMe happy to make the changes for all 180+ articles, and not just for missions in (or of) his own country?
If we decide to go ahead, suburbs could be listed in a more appropriate style, like
As with the Houston example, I consider it vital that we list consulates by primary city that the consulate covers and where it is sited for all intents and purposes. Just go to the debates about World's largest cities and you will realise there are many, many ways to define the size of a city based on municipalities, contiguity etc.
I wonder if WhisperToMe remembers that prior to Pakistan hosting a consulate in Houston, the country was represented by honorary consul Joanne Herring (a famous celebrity who was played by Julia Roberts in Charlie Wilson's War?)
I am happy to make changes to whatever can be sourced :) - I would list the consulates like what is above. - Tomorrow I will go on a weeklong vacation, but if you want I can begin adding "real" locations ASAP (as in prior to tomorrow). Anyhow, that is really interesting; I didn't know that! WhisperToMe (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
