This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anittas (talk | contribs) at 18:51, 8 April 2007 (→High priority articles). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:51, 8 April 2007 by Anittas (talk | contribs) (→High priority articles)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | International relations Project‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
WP:NPOV
Please be aware that this project will likely necessitate extreme vigilance to maintain WP:NPOV standards. I applaud you effort, but advise extreme care and caution in your endeavor. Best of luck, and happy editing! SkipperClipper 03:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
original council proposal discussion for Foreign relations
- Description
- This WikiProject will aim to focus on articles that not much people really focus on. This Project will have 3 different kinds of articles under its scope: foreign relations, diplomats, and international meetings. Examples include, but are not limited to:
- Foreign relations - United States-Australia relations/Australia-New Zealand relations/Foreign relations of Azerbaijan
- Diplomats - Batyr Berdiyev/Hersey Kyota/Sayyid Faisal Bin Ali Bin Faisal Al-Said
- International Meetings - Millennium Summit/2005 World Summit/Shamrock Summit/Summit of the Americas
- Edits made to WP articles are heavily focused towards topics regarding the US, UK, and other major English-speaking countries here in the English WP. This project will focus on foreign relations between...let's say-Samoa and Palau. The project would attempt to create a centralized list of further branching list of all ambassadors from all countries. It would also attempt to create a detailed account of any international meetings, such as those listed above.
- I realize that most of this project's work would overlap into other WikiProjects. But an American Wikiproject can't possible form a United States-Australian relations without the assistance of the Australian Wikiproject! Therefore, I think that the Foreign relations WikiProject could also be a place where country-related Wikiprojects could meet together and discuss.--Ed 15:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
- Comments
- I like the idea. I wonder how it would relate to the proposed "Diplomatic Missions by Country" proposal higher on this page, though. John Carter 15:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- I like the broader scope of this Project, and believe it has more appeal than the abovementioned Diplomatic Missions by Country. In the long run, broader is better and stands a better chance of survival, given the inactive narrower projects. Chris 21:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Cool
Now we can start those 40,000 articles on bilateral relations!--Pharos 00:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- I received an inquiry on my talk page, and yes, I'm quite serious about that figure, actually. With about 200 countries, and each state actor having a significant relationship with every other one, we really should ideally have 40,000 (200 x 200) individual articles on bilateral relations. Anyone care to get started on Andorra-Tuvalu relations?--Pharos 04:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's not the figure I question, it's the tone and meaning of your statements. If you seek to mock, be clear. I am certain the creator of the project was using Samoa and Palau as illustrations, not literally. I would be very surprised, outside the G8, whether most smaller countries even have individual articles about relations with their own neighbors, unless there has been some conflict historically. If you have something constructive to say, be open. If you are just being ugly, that is unworthy of an admin. Chris 04:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- So far as I can ascertain, those two countries do not maintain formal relations with each other. Why should we have an article for this and similar circumstances if they are inherently unmaintainable? Your suggestion is grossly overstated.--cj | talk 04:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- What I meant by the statement I placed was to point out that we don't have the foreign policies of some small countries as detailed as we want them to be. I only meant to illustrate the lack of coverage among our political neighbors less covered by the media. However, this project is open to suggestions, and I would love to change the goals, scope, and guidelines if necessary.--Ed 05:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- It appears there's been some misunderstanding of my statement. I think this is a great project, and hope to contribute to it in future. I was just pointing out that there's a lot of work ahead (FWIW, I do actually think that bilateral relations between any two UN members would be inherently notable, though obviously Andorra and Tuvalu would be a low priority). By the way, I actually didn't notice you'd mentioned Samoa and Palau in the above section; I wasn't responding to that section in any way.--Pharos 05:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for clearing that up! :) I'm glad that you think this project's great. And yes, of course there's plenty of work to be done...that's pretty much why I thought this project would be needed.--Ed 05:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
High priority articles
I thought I'd pick out some of the major missing articles, from different regions of the world. These ones should be relatively easy to research; perhaps we could collaborate: Sino-Vietnamese relations, Indo-Sri Lankan relations, Argentina-Brazil relations, Russia-Belarus relations, South-Africa-Zimbabwe relations.--Pharos 05:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Good idea! One question: How do we distinguish between Argentina-Brazil relations and Brazil-Argentina relations? Doesn't the order of the countries' names imply a superiority between them? And I also think that we can get the help from other WikiProjects too.--Ed 05:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think that under normal circumstances, the first name represents the perspective of that country. For instance, American-Italian relations represents the way America views its relationships with Italy; whereas Italian-American relations, represents the Italian perspective. Altough here, you need one single article to cover both of those things. Well, good luck! Heh...--Thus Spake Anittas 18:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've given the naming thing a little thought too. The standard method would be just work alphabetically, and this makes sense to me. Such an approach, though, would be complicated by special forms like "Sino", "Indo", or "Anglo". We might want to consider a standard format that would avoid the adjectival forms (United Kingdom-United States relations instead of Anglo-American relations). It would be more awkward, but it would also be more consistent. This wouldn't be too different from the type of standard format we use for monarchs and nobility.--Pharos 06:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Where the adjectival forms exist, I feel we should use them. No need to shy away from common usage for the sake of a arbitrary standard.--cj | talk 06:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, we should have some sort of standard, because otherwise these articles will be titled quite randomly, as a cursory survey of the categories would show. As I see it, there are three types of name-forms we could be using, noun (e.g. India), adjective (e.g. Indian) and special prefix (e.g. Indo), where special prefixes only exist for certain countries. The first question is, what is to be the basic form used (i.e. Argentina-Brazil relations or Argentine-Brazilian relations? And then, if we assume countries with special prefixes always form the first part of the name, what do we do with double-prefixable countries — do we just go alphabetic (and alphabetic by country or by prefix?) or use the form that's more established? And what about prefixes that exist, but are a little rarely used, like "Russo"? It might be possible to work out these issues, but I hope you at least see the attraction of a simple standardized system.--Pharos 07:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Most of these types of articles that involve major countries have already been created. I think it would be best if we invite the other WikiProjects with countries to participate in this discussion as well.--Ed 16:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, we should have some sort of standard, because otherwise these articles will be titled quite randomly, as a cursory survey of the categories would show. As I see it, there are three types of name-forms we could be using, noun (e.g. India), adjective (e.g. Indian) and special prefix (e.g. Indo), where special prefixes only exist for certain countries. The first question is, what is to be the basic form used (i.e. Argentina-Brazil relations or Argentine-Brazilian relations? And then, if we assume countries with special prefixes always form the first part of the name, what do we do with double-prefixable countries — do we just go alphabetic (and alphabetic by country or by prefix?) or use the form that's more established? And what about prefixes that exist, but are a little rarely used, like "Russo"? It might be possible to work out these issues, but I hope you at least see the attraction of a simple standardized system.--Pharos 07:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Where the adjectival forms exist, I feel we should use them. No need to shy away from common usage for the sake of a arbitrary standard.--cj | talk 06:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)