Talk:List of diplomatic missions of Turkey

Lead
Kransky, this is a LIST of Turkish diplomatic missions. It is enough to have the info about TRNC next to TRNC, assuming that we need to write that. DenizTC 11:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As with similar articles, anything that needs to be explained should go up front in the introduction. I've added a new sentence explaining Turkey's fundamental position, so that the TRNC issue doesn't dominate the intro.   Kransky 12:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the previous version is better, this is a list, and it should stay simple. Any extra 'notable' info to an item should/may be added next to the item, imo. Now, if a wiki reader comes here for information about say, where the closest Turkish embassy/consulate in their country is, s/he will get distracted. Once again, this is a list. If you want to, in the lead we can refer to the main article of this list. The main article might be 'foreign (or diplomatic) relations of Turkey' or something like that. DenizTC 23:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this information about TRNC is important and worth to be included even in the list of foreign missions regarding that Turkey is the only country to do that. But I dont understand, Kransky, why you deleted coat of arms of embassy from list of pictures. (you did the same for North Korea and U.S.) I think list of embassies should be accompanied by ONE picture of coat of arms of an Embassy and some pictures of other embassies. I agree if there are so many, some selection should be made - example American diplomatic missions. Plaque with COA is as well informative how country represents itself. --Krokodyl 09:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not getting back to you earlier Krokodyl, I just noticed your comment on the COA. Details of Coats of Arms can be found on their respective sites (eg: Coat of arms of Hungary).  A picture of a Coat of Arms in a DMBC article (as you suggest, being a plaque on a building) is not going to add or complement any information about that country's diplomatic network.  A building, rather than a plaque, is more informative about how a country represents itself in the context of the purpose of these articles. Kransky 12:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:FOR on formatting and content of "List of diplomatic missions" article
There is now a discussion at WP:FOR on the formatting and content of "List of diplomatic missions" articles. As this discussion ostensibly could affect this article, editors are encouraged to provide their opinions on the WP:FOR at this link - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_International_relations - please do not discuss on this article talk page as valid points for consideration may very well not be seen by editors at large. Thank you, --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 00:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Reversion back to earlier style
Kransky (talk) 14:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. I have reverted the article back to the format it was in 2008.
 * 2. The formatting of this article is now consistent with almost all other Diplomatic Missions by Sending Country (DMBSC) articles.  Only the article concerning Serbia's missions is in the tabelled format, I believe, and it will be shortly be reverted back to the style it was in when first created by Avala in 2007.
 * 3. I cannot see any reason why Turkey is a special case that needs to be formatted in a different style to what almost every other article is in.
 * 4. If anybody considers they have a style that would be superior to what is currently being used (and why not, nobody is perfect!) and they are prepared to make all the necessary changes to all the DMBSC 200+ articles, then they should not hesitate to propose their idea at Category talk:Lists of diplomatic missions by sending country.
 * 5. If there is public support and consensus for change, then the new format should be adopted, and it should be adopted consistency across all relevant articles.


 * Valid point Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Turkey plans embassy in Somalia
[] - Canadian Bobby (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It already has one. --E4024 (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Planned Turkish Embassies
Turkey has planned/is planning to open more embassies:

1. Rwanda & Burundi 2. Djibouti 3. Chad 4. Guinea 5. Brunei 69.203.217.91 (talk) 23:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but also several new Consulates General... On the other hand, the tiny EU member state Luxembourg opened an Embassy in Ankara in 2012. --E4024 (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

"Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" vs. "TRNC"
I'm not sure I understand why there is a dispute over whether to list the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus by its full name (see [ here]), or by the abbreviation TRNC (see [ here]). I would strongly recommend a discussion leading to a consensus on this issue. And if the consensus is to use TRNC, it's not clear to me why it should be positioned between Croatia and the Czech Republic in a list that is supposed to be alphabetical (since, as far as I know, no one on either side of the Cyprus conflict refers to the TRNC as simply "Cyprus"). In any case, edit warring is definitely not the answer here (or, indeed, anywhere in Wikipedia). — Rich wales 16:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Richwales, I feel you are an objective user, this is why I reply: Turkey does not have diplomatic relations with what is called "Republic of Cyprus". Explaining the past and the merits of the Cyprus question would take pages, so I will not intend to do it. (Regrettably no-one will be able to understand the problem by reading WP.) Anyhow, the only State with which Turkey has diplomatic relations on the island of Cyprus is the TRNC (or the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus). Turkey, as any other sovereign State, is free to establish, not to establish or to severe diplomatic relations with any country.

In this case, the TRNC or the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus should -preferably- stay in the C letter as it is the only State in Cyprus where the Republic of Turkey has an Embassy. --E4024 (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, please see previous versions of the page where some users have tried to present the TRNC as part of the Republic of Cyprus! This mistake is all due to two facts:

1. Not knowing (or pretending to ignore) a basic fact of International Relations that "recognition is not an element of Statehood". 2. Although WP should only reflect what is the reality -and not what it "should" be- on Cyprus (See E. Britannica Cyprus article), as in any other issue, it insists on not separating the "Cyprus" article from the "Republic of Cyprus" article. --E4024 (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for the above.  I am reasonably familiar with the Cyprus conflict, BTW, though I have no ancestral, emotional, or other ties to either side.


 * It's still not clear to me why you believe the TRNC should be alphabetized as if it were "Cyprus". An average reader, not familiar with the Cyprus conflict, is not going to understand why TRNC is not alphabetized with the T's (i.e., between Switzerland and Ukraine in the current list of Turkish diplomatic missions in Europe).  I really don't think most people are going to follow a line of reasoning saying that TRNC is (or should be) placed with the C's because the TRNC is geographically part of the island of Cyprus.


 * And I'm not at all sure I understand what you mean by "some users have tried to present the TRNC as part of the Republic of Cyprus", or why this should have anything to do with the use of the TRNC abbreviation as opposed to the full English name. Are you saying this because the current "Cyprus" article in Wikipedia deals with both the island of Cyprus and the Republic of Cyprus — so that saying "Northern Cyprus", or "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus", appears to you or others to be an acknowledgment of claims by the Republic of Cyprus to sovereignty over the TRNC's territory?  Or is there some other reason (which I'm afraid I'm missing here)?


 * If the TRNC were to be included in this list via its full English name instead of the abbreviation, do you feel this would constitute "taking sides" for (or against) a full endorsement of the political legitimacy of the TRNC? And if so, do you believe the fact that we're working here with an article specifically about Turkey's diplomatic dealings makes any difference in the way the TRNC is identified in this article?


 * Or am I still somehow completely missing the point here? I realize this subject is a minefield, where people have passionate views on the use of titles, abbreviations, or even quotation marks.  —  Rich wales 17:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Richwales, you are only missing this edition where the TRNC (or the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus) denomination was lacking on the list.

After this, the rest is pure chat with you: If you are "reasonably familiar with the Cyprus question" you must be aware that the establishment of the TRNC -after saving the Cypriot Turks from Greek oppression- (Remember the situation on the island between 1964-74? Do you know the "Turkish ghettos" or have you ever heard of the "Missing Bus"?)  is a symbolic milestone of the fact that the Turks of Cyprus will never let their right to self-determination usurped; they accepted the formula envisaged in the Annan Plan (United Republic of Cyprus) only because it depended on the co-existence of two states, Turkish Cypriot (or TRNC) and the Greek Cypriot States. The TRNC is is not just another country in the world, it is a symbol we Turks cherish. (Finish chat part.) --E4024 (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding that old version of this article which you pointed out, I would definitely say that a listing of Turkish diplomatic missions (or, indeed, any sort of list at all) which identified the TRNC simply as "Cyprus" would be inaccurate and misleading.


 * As for the rest of what you said, I'm even more confused now than I was before. It's not clear to me why a Turkish perspective on the Cyprus dispute would lead someone to insist on calling Northern Cyprus by the abbreviation TRNC, as opposed to the full English name adopted and used by the Turkish Cypriot state.  My understanding (possibly flawed) of the Cyprus dispute up to this point had me assuming that supporters of the Turkish Cypriot side would be pushing for the use of the full name (and objecting to use of the abbreviation, especially when other countries in the same list are named in full) — while supporters of the Greek Cypriot side would, I assume, be objecting to the full name and insisting on other wordings with a view towards delegitimizing the north.  Why, in your view, has this particular content dispute (Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus vs. TRNC) been going on here?  —  Rich wales 19:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * My opinion: 1. For me there is no difference between using the abbreviation TRNC or the complete name of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. 2. When I came into this article and corrected it towards the real situation in life (see the incredible reference to Armenia in the introductary paragraphs of the old version), the name "Cyprus" was there, with a flag of the TRNC! As you rightly say, "it is inaccurate and misleading" but also unacceptable for us, Turks, in this WP, where Cyprus is equal to the (for me so-called) "Republic of Cyprus", to identify our TRNC with the name Cyprus. 3. Although seems conflicting, not for me, I "prefer" (certainly would not kill or die for it) to put the name or acronym of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus in the section letter C, because that is how it looks from Turkey. (Speaking about "Cyprus", diplomatic relations, sending and receiving Ambassadors... then we are referring to the TRNC.) But the TRNC does not pretend to represent the whole of Cyprus; it is only the "better half" of the island. 4. I feel (you cannot) that for some people, even pushing a name from letter C to T (towards the end, where it will be less visible) can be a source of pleasure. (Item 4 may be kept out of consideration, because that is more related to psychological than political analysis.) --E4024 (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that clarification. As an outsider who is attempting to remain neutral, I'd suggest that Northern Cyprus should be listed either as "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" or "Northern Cyprus", and it should be put in the proper alphabetical location (amongst the T's or the N's, depending on which name is used).  But most importantly, there needs to be a discussion and a consensus here — no edit warring.  —  Rich wales 20:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I thank you. For me, I prefer the full name. I dislike the term "Northern Cyprus" as long as the rest of the island is not called "Southern Cyprus". --E4024 (talk) 20:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Map
Could someone kindly actualise the map, taking it from the Turkish WP same article? (I don't know how to do those things.) Seksen, where are you, man?.. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by E4024 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Palestine - Edit request
The Turkish Consulate General in Jerusalem should not be within the caption Israel, because it is intended to represent Turkey before (the State of) Palestine and is directly responsible to the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and not to the Turkish Embassy in Tel-Aviv. (For the same reasons, this Consulate General is headed by an Ambassador.) I do not know how to add flag-icons and all; this is why I cannot do it myself. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 11:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of diplomatic missions of Turkey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100819025644/http://bingazi.bk.mfa.gov.tr/ to http://bingazi.bk.mfa.gov.tr/
 * Added tag to http://gence.bk.mfa.gov.tr/Consulate-General
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100614001827/http://www.yenidelhi.be.mfa.gov.tr/ to http://yenidelhi.be.mfa.gov.tr/
 * Added tag to http://www.zaman.com.tr/son-dakika/disisleri-bakanliginda-buyukelci-atamalari-yapildi/2021906.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090123110508/http://sam.be.mfa.gov.tr/ to http://sam.be.mfa.gov.tr/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110817162132/http://halep.bk.mfa.gov.tr/ to http://halep.bk.mfa.gov.tr/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090123122842/http://tirana.be.mfa.gov.tr/ to http://tirana.be.mfa.gov.tr/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091029172103/http://zurih.bk.mfa.gov.tr/ to http://zurih.bk.mfa.gov.tr/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on WP:NOTRELIABLE
"This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject"

I'm not quite sure if this tag makes sense for this article. It's a list of embassies, of course the sole source would be the Turkish Foreign Ministry. Albeit, the "embassies and consulates to open" section could actually benefit from third party sources. However, I don't see a reason for the entire article to be tagged instead of the relevant section only. Also the introduction paragraph has adequate references IMO. FactFindersEnigma (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)