|
Archived discussions
|
Workaround to fit with the hierarchy
[edit]
Proposal
[edit]| Bahrain This island state, the smallest of the Gulf emirates, is known in the region as the playground for visitors from its more conservative neighbors. |
| Iran A country full of historic places, a variety of attractions, and ecosystems that range from deserts in the central and southern parts to beautiful humid forests in the north near the Caspian Sea. Iran is also very ethnically and culturally diverse, and used to be the heart of the Persian Empire. |
| Iraq This cradle of civilization is too dangerous for leisure travel, though more intrepid travellers may find Iraqi Kurdistan a congenial place for a visit. |
| Israel The birthplace of both Judaism and Christianity, with numerous holy sites for Muslims, Druze and Baha'is as well, in addition to places of cultural, historical and prehistoric significance. A small land containing a variety of breathtaking natural views, including deserts, shores and peaks that are covered by snow in the winter, alongside a vibrant nightlife, liberal attitude and a high human and technological development, Israel is a country that combines old and new. |
| Jordan This country, with its vast deserts, also includes fertile land along the East Bank of the Jordan River and its tributaries, such as the Yarmouk, and contains rich archaeological remains, especially in Jerash and Petra, which is one of the new seven wonders of the world, and the extremely salty Dead Sea. |
| Kuwait Probably best known internationally for its brief occupation by Iraq and role in the 1990-1991 Gulf War, Kuwait is an oil-rich emirate that is a destination for laborers and businessmen, generally not for tourists. |
| Lebanon This small country is diverse in culture, religion, politics and terrain. Beirut in particular has been known for the most part as a very liberal city. However, Lebanon's sometimes contentious politics often cause instability in the country. |
| Oman A sultanate that's off the beaten path for most travellers, it is the only country that has a majority of Ibadi Muslims, and it is very rich in beautiful scenery. |
| Palestinian Territories The West Bank is home to historic cities such as Bethlehem, Hebron and Jericho. The Gaza Strip, though also of some historical importance, has restricted access, and is unstable and off-limits for most travelers. |
| Qatar This Arabian peninsula is the world's richest country in term of per capita GDP (PPP). It is probably best known for being the world headquarters of the Al Jazeera media corporation, which is owned by its government, and secondarily, for the striking modern skyline of its capital, Doha. |
| Saudi Arabia This oil-rich desert kingdom, subject to some of the harshest interpretations on Islamic Law in the world, is home to the holiest cities for Muslims: Mecca and Medina. |
| Syria This historic country was part of the Fertile Crescent in ancient times and shows the imprint of all historical periods since, but is in the throes of a bloody civil war that has not only killed a large number of people and displaced even more, but has also involved wholesale looting and destruction of archaeological relics by the so-called Islamic State organization, one of several fighting in Syria. |
| Turkey A very varied country that literally bridges Europe and Asia, it includes the cosmopolitan metropolis of Istanbul, many historical sites, and gorgeous mountains, lakes and coastlines. Turkey is the successor country to the Ottoman Empire, a huge empire that dominated most of the Middle East and large parts of Europe and North Africa for centuries. Nowadays it is a prosperous and modern nation populated by ethnic Turks with sizeable Kurdish and Arab minorities. |
| United Arab Emirates A major hub of oil shipping and foreign labor that includes the famous skylines of Dubai and Abu Dhabi and quieter, more traditional emirates like Sharjah. |
| Yemen This beautiful country, famous for its traditional adobe highrises, fertile highlands and delicious food, is in the throes of a brutal civil war and a very destructive international bombing campaign. |
- Egypt is generally considered to be part of the Middle East. However, it is grouped with the countries of Northern Africa because the most part of Egypt is in Africa.
Discussion
[edit]Very late, but this proposal looks good to me and hence support. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. Egypt is part of the Middle East. If that means Middle East has to be treated as an extra-hierarchical region, so be it. Pashley (talk) 10:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Pashley Egypt is breadcrumbed under Northern Africa though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- That's not a problem. We can make Middle East an extra-region and use West Asia in our breadcrumbs to cover only countries in Asia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Pashley Egypt is breadcrumbed under Northern Africa though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Egypt???
[edit]Isn't Egypt in Africa, not the Middle East? (That is obvious, but why is it here???). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- I mean, yes, it is in Africa and in the Middle East (and the Sinai is in Asia), but I have stated above that Middle East should be an extra-hierarchical region and West Asia should encompass only countries that are in Asia (or primarily in Asia, as Turkey is). However, I have been overruled to date. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- Primarily Africa though. I think we should do somewhat like Soumya's proposal above (but I'd have supported your proposal at that time if I was here then). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Swap Beirut for Damascus
[edit]I think we should make this swap. Damascus is one of the most historic cities in the world, and is considered one of the main cultural centres of the Arab world alongside Baghdad. Compared to Beirut, Damascus has played a much more significant role in world history. The dog2 (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Luxor is older, cooler, more historically significant (3200+-year-old royal tombs, consider this) and easier to visit than both. Ibaman (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Luxor is nice and would be better than either of the two, but can it really be listed here when the part of Egypt it's in is not the Sinai Peninsula? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- We already have Cairo listed, so I think we should avoid listing a second Egyptian city. The dog2 (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- yeah, if it's our intention to stay "current" and "up-to-date with facts on the ground", MAYBE we should not feature prominently places that are currently at war and unrest, and hardly visitable, and MAYBE write a disclaimer or even a warning box about this fact. And there are many sites here in War zone safety status. But I digress. Both places would and will be on my personal lifetime list of places to visit. But Luxor, I've been there recently and cannot hype it enough, it's not possible. Digressing again, sorry. Ibaman (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- My issue is less so about stability and more so geographical. It's too far south for me to consider it as part of the Middle East. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- hahahaha, the immortal "is this a proper region?" old discussion rising from its grave once again. How funny. Ibaman (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- If we're going to adopt the rule that places not stable enough for regular tourists to visit should not be featured on our city lists, then Baghdad would need to be excluded from this list too. But as it now stands, we have Kabul listed in Central Asia, and we have Kyiv and Odesa listed under Eastern Europe. All these will have to be removed too if we enact such a rule. But what's for sure is that in the absence of wars, Damascus is a much more historically significant city than Beirut. And with regard to Luxor, I don't doubt that it's great to visit and very historic, but as SHB2000 says, it is a little too far from Asia to be considered part of the Middle East, and is better listed under North Africa. The dog2 (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- hahahaha, very funny listing a very not-Middle Eastern destination in the Cities section. Very funny. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- hahahaha, the immortal "is this a proper region?" old discussion rising from its grave once again. How funny. Ibaman (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- My issue is less so about stability and more so geographical. It's too far south for me to consider it as part of the Middle East. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- yeah, if it's our intention to stay "current" and "up-to-date with facts on the ground", MAYBE we should not feature prominently places that are currently at war and unrest, and hardly visitable, and MAYBE write a disclaimer or even a warning box about this fact. And there are many sites here in War zone safety status. But I digress. Both places would and will be on my personal lifetime list of places to visit. But Luxor, I've been there recently and cannot hype it enough, it's not possible. Digressing again, sorry. Ibaman (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- We already have Cairo listed, so I think we should avoid listing a second Egyptian city. The dog2 (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Luxor is nice and would be better than either of the two, but can it really be listed here when the part of Egypt it's in is not the Sinai Peninsula? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- guys, seriously now, please read or re-read all the previous topics in this discussion. Luxor was meant as a light joke only. Let's abide the previous consensuses already achieved for a start. Ibaman (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- omw, I can't believe I actually fell for it... --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- The moment you mentioned "Egypt doesn't belong" I went "wow, this's been talked over", went to check the page and there it is, it's not even archived. Lack of attention, my bad. Ibaman (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- And it still doesn't belong in a region breadcrumbed to Asia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- The moment you mentioned "Egypt doesn't belong" I went "wow, this's been talked over", went to check the page and there it is, it's not even archived. Lack of attention, my bad. Ibaman (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- A relevant past discussion is at Wikivoyage talk:Article skeleton templates#War-torn cities. My view, then and now, is that for the list of 5-9 cities in non-bottom-level region articles, we should generally favor cities that are realistically visitable over cities that aren't, because that serves the traveller. From my understanding of the security situation in Baghdad and Damascus, I think they should both be omitted from the list in this article for the foreseeable future. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- In that case we will need to replace Baghdad with another city. Maybe Doha? The dog2 (talk) 05:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
City swap
[edit]OK, so based on the previous discussion, it seems people don't want to include war-torn cities in the list. So if that is the case Baghdad should be dropped, and we need to find a replacement. I propose Doha and SHB2000 proposes Ankara. I'd rather go for Doha so we don't have two cities in the same country (which is also why I didn't pick Abu Dhabi, Jeddah or Riyadh), but let's see what everyone says. The dog2 (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Doha sounds reasonable to me. Ankara would be fine but we do already have a Turkish city on the list. Jeddah or Riyadh might make sense too; Mecca is a unique destination so I can see a case for including another city in Saudi Arabia. (Of course there's no requirement to replace Baghdad with anything – it's perfectly fine to list eight cities instead of nine – but given there are a lot of major cities in this region, it probably makes sense to add something.) My travel experience in the Middle East is limited, so I would be eager to hear from people who are more familiar with the region. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- While I agree that it makes sense to choose cities that actually can be visited, without major fear of bombs, I wouldn't like that to be our main criteria. Sadly, in large parts of the world, war or unrest are common, and we might exclude important destinations that could be visited in more peaceful times, and forget to readd them when things settle – or have to have the same discussions over and over about whether Beirut or Jerusalem is safe enough with the tragedy in Gaza, what city to remove to get Baghdad back to the list and so on.
- An argument can be had for retaining cities like Damascus even if it isn't a destination to recommend for the moment, to remind of the heritage of the region. #Removing Damascus above and the linked Wikivoyage talk:Article skeleton templates#War-torn cities (where the discussion was continued) came to the conclusion that Damascus indeed should be removed, but I think the decision shouldn't be made without considering other aspects. Having only Russian cities in Eastern Europe could be seen as a statement I don't like.
- –LPfi (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly, it sounds like your point is that these things should be judged on a case-by-case basis taking into account all relevant considerations. I agree with that, and maybe I should have said so more clearly in my comment in the section above (I was trying to be concise and link to the old discussion for the nuances). As I said in the linked discussion, it would not be worth rewriting the lists for short-term emergencies or disasters. But as far as I know Baghdad has been unsafe for leisure travel for twenty years – this is not a short-term issue. I also don't think removing Baghdad would look like a political statement – the list will still include a wide range of cities from several different countries, and it is plainly sensible for a travel guide to recommend cities that travellers can realistically visit rather than cities that are too dangerous. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. I agree. I just felt that the opening posting of this section was worded too categorically, and might be interpreted as establishing consensus if the discussion bypassed the issues. –LPfi (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly, it sounds like your point is that these things should be judged on a case-by-case basis taking into account all relevant considerations. I agree with that, and maybe I should have said so more clearly in my comment in the section above (I was trying to be concise and link to the old discussion for the nuances). As I said in the linked discussion, it would not be worth rewriting the lists for short-term emergencies or disasters. But as far as I know Baghdad has been unsafe for leisure travel for twenty years – this is not a short-term issue. I also don't think removing Baghdad would look like a political statement – the list will still include a wide range of cities from several different countries, and it is plainly sensible for a travel guide to recommend cities that travellers can realistically visit rather than cities that are too dangerous. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- My rationale for Ankara is to get a different representation of Türkiye since Istanbul isn't very representative of all of the country, but Doha, QA, also works for me. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'd add Isfahan before Ankara, since it is an amazing place to visit -- lots of fine architecture & a top city for carpets. Ankara does have some fine museums including a lot of Hittite relics, and Gordion is nearby.
- One could also make case for Aden; it is historically important & we do not currently list a Yemeni city. Maybe too dangerous now?
- Doha is certainly important as a transport hub. I do not know how much else there is. Pashley (talk) 06:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- We already have Tehran listed for Iran. But certainly, Iran alone has many historic cities that would be worth visiting. Doha is known for its opulent shopping malls, its souk, the Museum of Islamic Arts, and a historic fort on its outskirts. Based on my readings, Doha is very similar to Dubai but a little more conservative. For instance, alcohol and pork are not as easily available to non-Muslims in Doha compared to Dubai. The dog2 (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- So about Aden: if the whole point is to (temporarily?) remove otherwise important cities in war-torn countries, it would be totally senseless to replace any of them with Aden, at a time when the Houthis are continuing to engage in hostilities and attacks on civil shipping. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, all of Yemen at the moment is off-limits. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, in the absence of war and long-term instability, Baghdad, Damascus, Aleppo, Aden and Sana'a should be considered for listing given their long and rich histories. Unfortunately, it is what it is now. So if there's no objections in 48 hours, I'll swap Baghdad for Doha. The dog2 (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, all of Yemen at the moment is off-limits. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- So about Aden: if the whole point is to (temporarily?) remove otherwise important cities in war-torn countries, it would be totally senseless to replace any of them with Aden, at a time when the Houthis are continuing to engage in hostilities and attacks on civil shipping. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Would it be worth adding something like this, after the city list?
- Several other cities in the region — Damascus, Baghdad, Aden and others — are historically important and well provided with attractions, but are not listed above because, as of early 2024, visiting them would be quite dangerous.
I'd say 'yes', but it does break our 7+-2 rule. Pashley (talk) 12:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- The rule is about avoiding long lists, which the addition wouldn't make it. One should not use such additions to squeeze in one's favourite city, but i don't see a problem adding such a paragraph in cases like this. –LPfi (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- I would support these mentions, too. They'd be in a sentence, not part of the list. Aleppo should be included among the mentioned cities. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, given the situation, we can make such a disclaimer. And I think Sana'a is also a historically significant. Its old town is a
UNESCO World Heritage Site. The dog2 (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, given the situation, we can make such a disclaimer. And I think Sana'a is also a historically significant. Its old town is a
- I would support these mentions, too. They'd be in a sentence, not part of the list. Aleppo should be included among the mentioned cities. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Done. Pashley (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- OK, but which cities should be listed? I had three above & two more were suggested. I ended up with four when I added the text. There are quite a few others that might be added: Gaza, Hebron, Sana'a, Erbil, ...
- My current thinking is that "Damascus, Baghdad and others" would be enough. Pashley (talk) 23:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Damascus and Baghdad are probably the most important in Arab history, but Aleppo is also a historically significant city, and had a large Armenian community before the civil war started and Al-Qaeda started kidnapping them. I don't think Gaza will have any historical sites left since the Israeli bombing campaign has basically levelled the entire city. The dog2 (talk) 05:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
@The dog2: Why was Cairo replaced with Doha? Aren't Doha and Dubai unnecessarily similar? I haven't seen any arguing for removing Cairo in the discussion above. Moreover, the edit was done with no edit summary – which I find unacceptable. –LPfi (talk) 06:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Absolutely not a good move. One could easily argue that Cairo is the most important city in the region, or perhaps second to Istanbul. Pashley (talk) 07:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reverted. Pashley (talk) 07:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, it was a fingerslip from working on my phone. I was adding Doha to replace Baghdad which had removed. The removal of Cairo wasn't intentional. Sorry. The dog2 (talk) 13:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Although there are good reasons to remove Egypt from the region, or to turn it into an extra-region, which have been repeatedly discussed above... Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, it was a fingerslip from working on my phone. I was adding Doha to replace Baghdad which had removed. The removal of Cairo wasn't intentional. Sorry. The dog2 (talk) 13:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- While I do think Cairo should be removed (since it is not categorized beneath this article), a better city to replace it would be Muscat, not Doha. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- While I haven't been to any of those three cities, that's a good point, as Muscat contrasts more with Arab Gulf cities like Dubai and Abu Dhabi than Doha does. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- No, Egypt & Cairo should definitely stay; see extensive discussion above. I would not go beyond that -- e.g. adding Alexandria (which is an important city but not one of the region's top 9) or including Sudan or Libya which some writers call part of the Middle East -- but would dig in my heels for Cairo. Pashley (talk) 00:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- I have no problem with identifying the Middle East as including Egypt, Libya and Sudan. I do have a problem with making it a regular region breadcrumbed to Asia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Beirut
[edit]Maybe it's time we should swap this out for a safer city now. Beirut is being bombed by Israel, and it looks like we're heading for a major war between Israel and Lebanon, so it probably will not be safe to visit for the forseeable future. The dog2 (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- This has been a recurring situation, and I think Beirut has been a worthwhile destination in the times when there wasn't war going on. It is unsafe now, but whether it is for the foreseeable future is less clear. What about Jerusalem? I think we should be reluctant to remove cities because of current events, especially if we don't have an alternative city list that is as good regarding other aspects. See also #City swap above. –LPfi (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
misplacement of turkey
[edit]hello, i see that turkey is placed under 'middle east' while the united natios tourism organization and european tourism comission is placing turkey under europe. since this site is 'wikivoyage' and not 'wikipedia', the deciding factor should be the international organizations, not our perceptions. 83.9.121.225 13:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- The deciding factor is the interests of the traveller (ttcf). The current placement seems obviously correct to me. Pashley (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- This has been extensively discussed before. See several earlier sections of this page.
- To me it seems that everything worth saying on the topic was said more than a decade ago at Talk:Turkey/Archive_2004-2012#Who.27s_your_daddy.3F & all discussions since have been a waste of time. Pashley (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. A small part of Turkiye is indeed in Europe, but most of the country is on the Asian side of the Bosporus/Dardanelles. It wouldn't make sense to categorize the country as a European country, given regions in the southeast of the country that are well within the geographic boundaries defined as those of Asia. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 16:28, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
those 'tourism organizations' are 'united nations' and the 'european union'. namely the most prominent organizations around the world. also, i would say that the discussion above is not decisively consensus-ed. i would really like to have a fruitful discussion with the culture being the main topic.
i would like to start it by arguing that the modern turkish culture (late-ottoman and turkey) and history is actually much more aligned with balkans rather than middle east. especially in the places with the majority of the population. from architecture to how people eat and act and look. there is a stark contrast between turkey and any other country in the middle east, but not that much of difference between let's say albania and greece and turkey. i believe the last comment in that discussion summarized that too.
if you and more people would like to join, i'll provide further points regarding my argument :) 83.9.121.225 20:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you do, do it in one place, not both here and Talk:Turkey. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
i already placed a disclaimer there. i'll create or login to my veery old wiki account (retired like 5 years ago maybe) and come back. the last discussion apparently had little reality check. 83.9.121.225 20:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- The question is not about "cultural affinity". If it were, we also have to consider creating a Turkosphere region to include Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, etc. The question us where will readers expect to find Turkiye in Wikivoyage. I don't thinknwe should spend a lot of time and energy to move a country article. It would get better to focus on updating and expanding our Turkish articles to provide readers more information on travelling in this amazing country. We are here to build a travel guide, not to argue about which arbitrary region a country belongs to. Ground Zero (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Right. Especially since all the arguments have been made and discussed at length before. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- 83.9.121.225: I mean the reality is that Türkiye is a bit of a unique case in that it is a perfect mix of the Caucasus, Middle East and Europe so it will never really fit into any particular region nicely (we have the same issue with Russia, too), but the status quo has been agreed upon because that's what benefits travellers most. --SHB (t | c | m) 07:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Right. Especially since all the arguments have been made and discussed at length before. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi again fellas. I am extremely busy these days so I couldn't keep up with the topic. But I can assure you that the previous conversation does not have a clear consensus and lacks the much-needed fact-checking. It was mostly driven by personal remarks, regardless of the reality. For example, a user called Kars a 'Middle Eastern city' whilst it is purely of Caucasus culture. The food, the folk dances, the architecture and so forth. It was the capital of 'Provisional National Government of the Southwestern Caucasus' or some ancient Armenian Kingdom to give an example of its embedded Caucasus culture.
Turkey is not culturally homogenous, and the 'Middle Eastern' part of its culture is probably the least contributing one among the many. You'll see clear distinction between let's say Iraq and Turkey or Iran and Turkey in terms of anything that you can name while you'll see much less tone differences between Albania or Greece and Turkey. I am telling you this as a person who spent most of his life there and I possess only half heritage. Most of yous have a conception of Turkey mainly by its 'oriental' portrayal and Erdogan's rabid speeches but Turkish culture is actually not that 'Islamized' and doesn't fit at Middle East at all. We can detail it as we like but you could just see it for yourself by visiting the club scene of Istanbul or the beaches in Antalya or just having some rakı-balık in Izmir. To build up to this conversation, only 30-40% of women veils and the majority of them are old generations who dwell in the rural parts of Anatolia.
Also, on the other hand, Turkey wouldn't fit in Central Asia by any means. The cultural similarity between let's say Kazakhstan and TR would be comparing Hungary and Finland. Slim chances. 83.9.116.119 00:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- For the record, my argument for keeping Türkiye as-is is because Türkiye will never fit in properly with any of the regions (and it makes sense – there isn't anything like Türkiye in how it's at the crossroads of Europe, the Middle East and the Caucasus), but changing it requires a lot of work for not much benefit gained. --SHB (t | c | m) 00:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Umm then shouldn't we placing Turkey where it 'mostly' fits? Right now, it feels just like putting Australia to 'Southeast Asia' - Indonesia to 'Oceania'. I am willing to take over any paperwork or housekeeping for this. We can also widen the topics in this conversation too. You name it. 83.9.116.119 01:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Most of Turkey is in Asia. I would support making Middle East an extra-region outside of the site's breadcrumb hierarchy and making the region of Asia simply West Asia, but a consistent consensus has continued to support the hierarchical problem of keeping a Middle East region that's breadcrumbed to Asia but which includes Egypt, the overwhelming majority of which is in Africa. But in any case, the point about Turkey is more geographic than anything else, and it's not like Russia, which is mostly geographically in Asia but the overwhelming majority of its population is in the European part, where the Asian part was colonized from. To be frank, if we were relying solely on geography, we would have a continent of Eurasia and dispense with the idea of Europe and Asia at all. If anything, we'd regard the Indian Subcontinent and Arabia as different continents based on plate tectonics. But everything ultimately comes back to the traveler comes first and having at least a halfway coherent breadcrumb navigation structure for the site. And that unfortunately means at the margins, making some people unhappy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Again, I'm talking about cultural affinity, not geographic percentages or the fact that only 15-20M of the population dwells in the European part of TR while 60M dwells in Anatolia. If we look at it this way, then why Cyprus is being listed under Europe? We're indeed talking about 'the traveler comes first' so we should include the cultural & historical continuum (as a point: just check the architecture of let's say Safranbolu, TR - Berat, ALB to solidify) , what kind of an environment would the tourists be expecting (apparel choices, availability of alcohol, how everyday people lives etc) and how the UN's WTO and EU's Tourism Commission advises regarding this classification - which are traveler centric. I again want to clarify that the previous 'talk' about this issue is basically half-done, motivated by pure personal misconceptions and without a clear final declaration.
I would also agree on the fact that the 'Middle East' is an artificial concept without any clear instructions whilst 'West Asia' would offer a decent solution. Although on the case of Egypt, I see that it's currently classified as 'North Africa' which is both culturally and geographically valid. 83.9.116.119 10:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- The problem is that Egypt is fully included in both North Africa and Middle East, and Middle East is breadcrumbed to Europe. I think Cyprus is treated differently because the country is in European organizations and just plain usually considered European, not only by Cypriots but by non-Cypriots. I don't think visitors would expect a country that is geographically mostly in Asia and whose population is mostly in Asia to be treated more as part of Europe than part of Asia, and while you could argue that all of Cyprus is in Asia, the fact that it's an island in the Mediterranean changes things, similar to all those Greek islands in the Aegean that are very close to Anatolia but not usually considered Asian. Israel is even represented in some European organizations like the Eurovision Song Contest and European soccer (football), but it wouldn't make sense to treat Israel as part of Europe, rather than Asia. Of course none of Israel is actually in Europe, but you see my point. If you're going by dress and so forth, where should Tel Aviv and Haifa be breadcrumbed to? And for that matter, what about socially liberal areas of Beirut? Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- "I would also agree on the fact that the 'Middle East' is an artificial concept without any clear instructions whilst 'West Asia' would offer a decent solution." About this part, I've been saying the same thing for some time, it can maybe be located inside this talk page's archives. However, this "You're all wrong, listen to me, I'm 100% right all the time" type of attitude, which happens in this discussion whenever a new user comes around, let's say at least three times a year... this got tiresome a long time ago. Ibaman (talk) 11:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I also agree with both of you and think this should be our exception to the rule on using the most common name for a place or region. It creates fewer ambiguities. --SHB (t | c | m) 11:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd argue that "Middle East" is not a term for West Asia but a term for West Asia plus at least Egypt, Sudan and Libya. Therefore, I'd argue that it is not the most common name for a region that does not include any of Africa. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- you might remember the conundrum over "Latin Europe". IMHO this one is very similar. Ibaman (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Similar, but Middle East is an-almost universally recognised term (in English at least), albeit vague and arbitrary, but almost no one has heard of Latin Europe. --SHB (t | c | m) 12:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- you might remember the conundrum over "Latin Europe". IMHO this one is very similar. Ibaman (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd argue that "Middle East" is not a term for West Asia but a term for West Asia plus at least Egypt, Sudan and Libya. Therefore, I'd argue that it is not the most common name for a region that does not include any of Africa. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I also agree with both of you and think this should be our exception to the rule on using the most common name for a place or region. It creates fewer ambiguities. --SHB (t | c | m) 11:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- "I would also agree on the fact that the 'Middle East' is an artificial concept without any clear instructions whilst 'West Asia' would offer a decent solution." About this part, I've been saying the same thing for some time, it can maybe be located inside this talk page's archives. However, this "You're all wrong, listen to me, I'm 100% right all the time" type of attitude, which happens in this discussion whenever a new user comes around, let's say at least three times a year... this got tiresome a long time ago. Ibaman (talk) 11:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Proposal
[edit]This is a complicated problem & no solution will satisfy everyone. I'd like to propose one anyway.
Turkey is a difficult case, with strong ties to at least Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Mediterranean civilisation, & the Islamic world. It is & should be mentioned in & linked from all those articles. However, it can only have one breadcrumb, one place in the article hierarchy. I'd say the breadcrumb should be to Europe; I thought that had been agreed on more than a decade ago at Talk:Turkey/Archive_2004-2012#Who.27s_your_daddy.3F. As I see it, where we breadcrumb it does not actually matter much but this is the best choice because it avoids some arguments.
The Middle East simply does not work as a region in our hierarchy. Its breadcrumb is to Asia but most of Egypt is in Africa & parts of Turkey in Europe. Some definitions, though not our current one, include one or more of Sudan, Libya, Cyprus, ... It needs to become a Wikivoyage:Extraregion. Pashley (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Middle East could very well be made an extraregion – but there hasn't been any consensus on it before, and moving Turkey on the assumption that that consensus will emerge is premature. The discussion was held back in 2007, when our hierarchy was different (where's the Mediterranean Europe?) and I don't see that consensus. Was this posting a joke? Such jokes don't bring matters forward. –LPfi (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- It certainly was not a joke. Pashley (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Then I don't know where you get the idea from that there was ever a consensus to breadcrumb Turkey to Europe, and the thread you point to doesn't show that there was one then, either. My proposal is to make Middle East an extra-region, include not only Egypt but also Sudan and Libya in it as an extra-region, and make Turkey part of a West Asia region that includes all of the Asian or mostly Asian countries currently covered in the Middle East article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- It certainly was not a joke. Pashley (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Ikan, what you said for Cyprus above would be also applicable for Turkey. Turkey is considered 'Europe' by the WTO, EU Tourism Comission and the Council of Europe (many more). And as I've said numerous times, visitors would also be seeing a much European-like country (standards, history, culture, daily life, attractions and events) in contrast to let's say Iraq or any other neighboring 'Mid East' country. So again, I would say recategorizing as Europe would be much more appropriate. 83.9.116.119 11:38, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's geographically misleading, at least. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:41, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
To summarize my position; the previous discussion was held with the parties who probably never visited Turkey and/or with limited ethnocultural, geographical and historical knowledge. Per my statements above, it's clear as a day that Turkey actually has much more shared aspects (architectural, ethnic, cuisine, cultural, customs/traditions, laws, standards and even the daily usage of Turkish words in Albanian and Bosnian/Serbian) with 'any' country in Balkans (incl. GR) rather than 'any' in the Mid East cluster. I also know that there is a misconception regarding TR being 'Islamic', but it is also simply an overkill which is driven by prejuidice and people speaking without possessing any first-hand experience and knowledge. Just go on buy a plane ticket or open up a daily walk video on Youtube to see it for yourself.
I also see that even though the bulk of the Caucasus, Cyprus and Russia being in Asia, they're indicated within Europe so I simply would object any claims regarding 'geographical positioning'. What misleads the most is the current status-quo. Especially regarding the tourism expectations.
Since the traveler would feel like in any other southeastern-European country rather than Mid East when they visit the most popular destinations in TR (Istanbul, Antalya and Izmir etc.), and also per the official designations of the EU and UN tourism organizations, I suggest its relocation. I notice that there's already a classification named 'Greece & Turkey' under Europe so the paperwork shouldn't be that bothersome. Dudewithafez (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- bump Dudewithafez (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Its not only about the most popular destinations – those are often different from the rest of the country (more cosmopolitan etc.). Would you not be able to tell the difference between a Bulgarian and Turkish countryside village and the culture there? –LPfi (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Of course, there will be differences with any given country with any other country. But you'll be noticing much less differences with Bulgaria or any other Balkan land and much more differences with let's say Iraq (the only exception being the mostly Kurdish inhabited southeast parts, their domain - Kurdistan - extends into ME). I am actually shocked that it's not a common knowledge here, in the leading tourism insight website. Apparently, nobody visited any of the places that we're talking about...
Some links to supplement;
I think I provided more than enough for this matter in general. I suggest that if anybody wants more insight to this, one could visit reddit subreddits like r/askbalkans or r/balkans_irl to flip their misconceptions. Dudewithafez (talk) 13:17, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- "To summarize my position; the previous discussion was held with the parties who probably never visited Turkey and/or with limited ethnocultural, geographical and historical knowledge."
- this sounds EXTREMELY condescending and unpleasant, coming from someone who practically started using this travel guide in 2025 and seems to have no respect for other people's work along several years. I don't feel like engaging in dialog with this user, I really don't. Ibaman (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Discussions aren't limited to people who have been to a particular place, though please don't attribute an argument about Bulgarians vs. Turks to anyone but the one who made it. I have yet to visit either country, but I'm very much aware that the two countries border each other, that there is a large Turkish community in Bulgaria and that there are also Muslim Bulgarians whose ancestors in many instances came across the new border with Turkey after World War I. Also, had this site existed in 1825, no-one would have disputed that Turkey was a European realm in a huge way then, and I'm not sure how the fact that it was European, Asian and African would have been dealt with in terms of breadcrumb navigation, but that's not the situation now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Urdu, Hindi and Tagalog
[edit]We now say:
- "Urdu and Hindi are also widely known in the Gulf emirates and Saudi Arabia as large Pakistani and Indian communities work in these countries. Tagalog is also known to some extent, particularly in main cities (Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Riyadh, Doha, etc.), due to a large influx of Filipino migrant workers across the region."
Unless these languages are known as second (foreign) languages by significant numbers of people, I think we should say explicitly that they are known by those communities. If you get a taxi driver who looks South Asian, you could try your Urdu or Hindi, and if a waiters looks like a Filipina, you could try Tagalog (is that appropriate? in Sweden it isn't), but what's the reaction if you do the same with your Arab host as your Hindi is stronger than your English?
–LPfi (talk) 08:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, these languages are only spoken among the respective immigrant communities. An local Arab citizen probably won't speak them, though he would probably speak English so he can communicate with them, and those immigrant communities would be expected to learn English. The dog2 (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. I tweaked accordingly. –LPfi (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, these languages are only spoken among the respective immigrant communities. An local Arab citizen probably won't speak them, though he would probably speak English so he can communicate with them, and those immigrant communities would be expected to learn English. The dog2 (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)