Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations/Archive 4

US consulate in Peshawar
Some militants today attacked the US consulate in Peshawar: Would anyone know of more information that would be helpful in writing an article about this consulate? WhisperToMe (talk) 10:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Khan, Ismail and Sabrina Tavernise. "Militants Target a U.S. Consulate in Pakistan." The New York Times. April 5, 2010.
 * And more: CNN Wire Staff. "Explosions near U.S. consulate in Peshawar kill at least 6." CNN. April 5, 2010.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 13:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Missing diplomacy topics
I've updated my page about missing diplomacy topics - Skysmith (talk) 10:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI
I've tagged Delegation of the European Union to the United States. APK whisper in my ear  04:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

new related WikiProject: United States Public Policy
Hi everyone! I want to invite anyone who's active here and has an interest in American public policy (including policy related to international relations) to join WikiProject United States Public Policy, which is just starting up. We've got some cool things planned, including working with students and their professors for several public policy courses.--Sross (Public Policy) (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiProjects East Asia and North America
FYI, two regions without supranational coordination wikiprojects have had them proposed, see
 * WikiProject Council/Proposals/North America
 * WikiProject Council/Proposals/East Asia

76.66.193.119 (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Assessment
How do i request assessment of International Court of Justice advisory opinion on Kosovo's declaration of independence many readers have said it is hughly informative
 * I have requested a peer review Peer_review/International_Court_of_Justice_advisory_opinion_on_Kosovo%27s_declaration_of_independence/archive1, and would appreciate any and all help. (Lihaas (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

List of sovereign states
There is currently a discussion taking place here over how states are listed on List of sovereign states. Any input from members of this project is welcome. TDL (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about using UN Member States names as article titles
There is a discussion at the Naming Conventions (geographic names) project page on the use of UN names in article titles that may interest editors of this and related articles. The discussion was instigated by myself as a possible route to standardising the approach to the names of articles of nation-states in Wikipedia. I would be very interested to have more views on the subject from those who are familiar with the detail of UN naming conventions, UN-related articles, etc. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Assistance needed with Eastern Europe
The Eastern Europe article is fraught with geopolitical errors, mislabels and slanted facts as if much of it was written by ultraconservatives during the Cold War from an ethnocentric position. If you agree with that Central Europe is more than a backwards ex-Soviet satellite, please assist in rewording/correcting the article lead and body. Gregorik (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Defamation of religions and the UN
Please let AzureFury know which lede is best at Talk:Defamation_of_religions_and_the_United_Nations. Skip down to the sad face if you are in a hurry. Thank you. PYRRHON  talk   15:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Guideline essay
I was thinking of writing some sort of guideline essay based on precedence for reaction lists. Is there someone who can either help or direct where best to have it put?Lihaas (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

International relations articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the International relations articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (&diams;) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Major proposed overhaul of Sea of Japan naming dispute
The article Sea of Japan naming dispute has been under full protection for about 1 month due to an edit war that occurred in August. Discussion on the talk page stalled at the end of August, and there are not many active participants on that page. Since that time, I have been working on a wholly new draft to fix, as best as I could, many of the numerous problems on the article. Since this article falls within the purview of this Wikiproject, I am inviting members to come participate in the discussion on the talk page at Sea of Japan naming dispute, which explains the current articles deficiencies (poor sources, disorganized, etc.) and what I have done to fix them. In that section you will find a link to the draft version in my user space. While this article and its subject are clearly a contentious matter, I sincerely believe that we can create a useful and NPOV article about the subject through the careful involvement of more editors. Thank you for any help you can provide. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

International law banner
I started using a task force parameter of the WikiProject International relations banner for WP:WikiProject International law articles given that everything relevant to international law will be relevant to international relations in general (for an example, see Talk:Territorial waters. However, someone asked me to stop halfway. Is there any objection here for me to continue? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think youre right on further side, there is an awful lot of overlap. If there are exceptions we can change it then.Lihaas (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Silvio Michelotto former Italian Ambassador?
The article on former Italian Ambassador to France (1985 -1990) Silvio Michelotto has been tagged as an unreferenced biography of a living person since December 2008, which is the current focus month of the BLP Rescue Project. I have tried, and failed, to find any reliable sources to support this text. I can't find anything for his term as Ambassador (which could be due to the dates but is a bit surprising) or for the company he is supposed to have founded. I'm posting here in the hope that someone might be kind enough to take a look and help. If it stays unreferenced much long, it may be nominated as an AfD.--Plad2 (talk) 06:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)--Plad2 (talk) 06:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Brazil-Portugal relations
the page needs to be expanded, sourced and organised. Ive done stuff off the top of my head but its awfully late now, and i hope to be in bed soon.Lihaas (talk) 19:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Move request for Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority
It has been proposed that Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority be renamed and moved. Please contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Requested moves.  Night w   11:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

List of states with limited recognition at FLRC
nominated List of states with limited recognition for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.  Night w   15:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

SORT
SORT has been requested to be renamed Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, see Talk:SORT

65.95.13.158 (talk) 10:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Globalization
Members of this project may be interested in participating in this discussion about recent changes to the globalization article. Your input would be appreciated. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge assistance requested
There is an old merge tag suggesting a merge of Estrada Doctrine and Recognition of states approach. Are these the same thing? If so, has this diplomatic approach been used in other countries? If so, recognition of states could be in general while Estrada could focus on Mexico. Please comment at Talk:Recognition of states approach D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  04:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Naming conventions for bilateral relations articles
What are the naming conventions for bilateral relations articles? The only good-class article about bilateral relations is German–Japanese relations, employing a "Demonym–Demonym relations" format, but I see that most articles about bilateral relations, such as Canada – United States relations, Australia – New Zealand relations, and People's Republic of China – Russia relations, employ a "Country name – Country name relations" format. Is there a reason for the discrepancy? Neelix (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Editor help is needed with IR inherent bad faith model content for Bad Faith article
We need another editor's help with adding content to the IR inherent bad faith model from political psychology, for in the Bad Faith article. HkFnsNGA (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Special Relationship
The article Special Relationship, concerning US-UK relations, is being turned into an anti-British diatribe. It began with outright vandalism and I have reverted more than once. More eyes would be helpful. Lachrie (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

List of delegates to the Millennium Summit
Hi there. The above list is currently a featured list, but falls far short of 2011 standards. Issues include a brief, uncited lead section, a lack of images, and at least one of the references pointing to a generic page rather than a specific article. I've posted here in the hope of finding someone who might be interested in doing some restoration work, so that we can avoid taking the list to a featured list review. Regards, —WFC— 12:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to add "statistics" section to List of states with limited recognition
It has been proposed that a "statistics" section is added to List of states with limited recognition. Please contribute to the discussion at Talk:List of states with limited recognition. Alinor (talk) 07:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:World government
I have started a discussion about the appropriateness and scope of Template:World government at Template talk:World government. I would appreciate your input. --Onen hag oll (talk) 21:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

International Labor Standards
According to the WikiProject International relations goals, the project seeks to create a detailed account of diplomatic relations and to extensively define various diplomatic processes. Seeing as the project covers all articles that involve a relationship between two or more government entities, a colleague and I are planning on expanding the stub article on International labour standards and including it as part of WikiProject International Relations. International labor standards, which at this point have been primarily developed by an international organization, are directly related to international relations as standards that many advocate should become “universal human rights” and even implemented as requirements enforced by trade agreements between governing bodies. Furthermore, international labor standards have been mostly developed by a specialized agency of the United Nations, the International Labour Organization (ILO), which the project page specifically lists as an organization within the scope of the project. Therefore, we believe the project would benefit greatly from the addition of an article that focuses on the formation of international labor standards, arguments for and against them, and their effect on international relations. We would appreciate any feedback and look forward to contributing to this project.
 * -- Leejohnson898 (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * -- Krisinaz (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority move to Foreign relations of Palestine
There is a proposed move from Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority to Foreign relations of Palestine. If you are interested please join this discussion. Alinor (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The move request at Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority was closed, so we're now taking suggestions for an alternative. As you were involved in the previous discussion, I'd be grateful if you could contribute to the new one. Please lodge your support for a proposal, or make one of your own. Night w2 (talk) 04:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Albanian Ambassadors
While stub-sorting I've found a flurry of minimal articles such as Albanian Ambassador to Argentina, and wondered whether they were correctly set up - over to you lot as the experts! PamD (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

IMF page and the inclusion on the rape-charge
Can some others please help in maintaining the IMF page and constantly removing the section onDSK's rpe case? What he has done or supposedly did has nothing to do with the IMF.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 12:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think a brief, neutral, and balanced discussion would be better. Removing any mention at all, despite extensive coverage in reliable sources which explicitly connects the case to the IMF, is no way to write a good article. However, you could shop around some more forums if you don't like the response you get here. bobrayner (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The page has been cleared well but DSK's page has more info on the sex case than his contributions to the financial world.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 12:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Notice of RfC pertaining to Kosovo
The placement of Kosovo on List of sovereign states is currently being debated. We need further input from uninvolved editors about how best to proceed. Your participation would be greatly appreciated. The discussion is being held at Talk:List of sovereign states/Discussion of criteria.  Night w   00:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Safe Planet


I think that this recently-created article falls within the scope of this wiki-project.

On the talk page, a user has raised concerns that it is overly dependent on primary sources; I think that is true. So, if anyone can help improve it, trim out anything inappropriate, etc. - please do. Best,  Chzz  ► 03:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

UNDG
Anyone with experience or knowledge on the United Nations Development Group? Please help expand the article; I've done some work.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

International Space Station
nominated International Space Station for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

Please understand, this is about an effort to improve the article, and get some new blood and new ideas into this article. Penyulap  talk 15:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ISS on IR?Cibwins2885 (talk) 12:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it wasn't one that comes to mind for me either, when I look at the fields that are needed to help out in improving this very important article. Robotics just doesn't get any kind of coverage at all, Japan, who has the largest laboratory wasn't even a listed wikiproject, ditto Canada, one of the main 5 partners. IR, I saw was like all about (hot air?) well, you know, the ins and outs of diplomacy, you guys know what your up to, I have a fair idea, and the link seems tenuous to myself also. The original pact that brought the 5 (Russia, European space agency, US, Japan, Canada) has gone quite stale and left a bad taste in the mouth of Russia and the US. The US is abandoning the ISS, due to lack of funds, political interest, lack of coordinated technical development, and the Russians have a seen a co-operative partnership where both sides provide support to each other for free, turn into what their people are calling a 'provision of services', so I'm not so sure it's as much a meeting of political minds as once it was. Later, China and India and I think s.korea would be invited by ESA (and Russia) to help out, if the US is out of the picture, that may revive interest ? I only included the message here as a professional courtesy, as the IR has the ISS article within the scope of it's wikiproject as indicated on the talkpage. If it is tenuous these days, then I fully support you discussing it with anyone concerned, or it's outright removal, if there is just one or two active editors here holding the fort. There is simply no need for you guys to have useless busy work if the ISS is of no special interest for IR. You blokes are the experts on what it is you do, I think the article is well assisted by enough editor experts to adequately address international relations issues as it is. Just give it a quick browse, and it's up to you guys. I'm on holiday from the article for a month or so. Penyulap   talk 13:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

List of United States Foreign Service Career Ambassadors
So, I have been informed that I should seek permission to add your banner to articles. Should List of United States Foreign Service Career Ambassadors be bannered with this project? 65.93.15.213 (talk) 04:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * By all means, go ahead. Thanks for the heads-up! Maethordaer (talk) 07:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Diplomatic recognition articles
I am planning on creating a series of "diplomatic recognition" articles to display which countries recognize which countries and was hoping to get some opinions. I am thinking of a model similar to Talk:International recognition of South Sudan. Suggestions? -- とある白い猫 chi? 09:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is only really of benefit where the country is disputed. Similar articles already exist for those. I don't really see the need for the likes of International recognition of France, which will just be a list of the other 192 UN member states. Bazonka (talk) 08:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. 192 countries listed based on when they recognized. Why do you not see a use for such a thing? Could you provide a reason besides you not wanting? Some countries used to be disputed in the past but are no longer disputed. Also consider the special case of Taiwan (Republic of China) which used to be a UN member and also a founding member (and also a security council member). -- とある白い猫 chi? 21:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Foreign relations of the Republic of China article already includes this sort of information, as do similar international recognition articles for Kosovo, Abkhazia, and other disputed states. I don't have a problem with these.
 * But I question the need for international recognition articles for non-disputed countries. Where will you get the data from? And won't all the articles be practically identical?
 * There may be some merit in having articles for formerly disputed countries, but only where the necessary information is available. Bazonka (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Bazonka says what I wanted to say, but more eloquently. However, I'd caution that for the subset of countries where diplomatic recognition is actually interesting, we will probably already have an article which touches on it to some extent, and introducing a new one (even if it's neutral) might attract a lot of unwelcome attention from warring tribes of pro- and anti- editors. bobrayner (talk) 01:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not see the problem really. Say for a country with international recognition (Say Czech Republic or Estonia) the recognition order, dates, international organizations countries recognizing that are a member of (which changed over time such as EU and NATO expansions) are all relevant to give perspective. There are cases such as the Republic of China / People's Republic of China where such a list would particularly be helpful in establishing exactly what happened as just following the chronology is confusing enough to me as is. I do not see what possible dispute could emerge from a statement like "bla country recognized bla2 country bla year, bla organization". I would be particularly be interested in organizations like Warsaw Pact membership for more historic articles.
 * Having said all that I am not really planning on creating several hundred articles overnight. Such a creation would be done gradually for "interesting" lists only. My main proposal here is the template structure for such articles including the ones in existence.
 * -- とある白い猫 chi? 09:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You have not answered the question of where you'll get the necessary data from. Unless you have a reliable and complete source, then it is probably not wise to spend too much time on this. Bazonka (talk) 10:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, people reading this thread may wish to contribute to the related discussion at International recognition of South Sudan. Thanks. Bazonka (talk) 11:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, high-level formal international decisions taken by governments tend to be quite well documented (apart from certain secret stuff, but recognition and secrecy are polar opposites), so sourcing is certainly available, although in some cases there may have to be use of primary sources and it may be time consuming. I wouldn't object very strongly to the use of primary sources from Government X for a claim that "government X recognised state Y on date Z", but on the other hand they wouldn't really establish notability. Presumably there would be a fair amount of secondary sourcing available if somebody had the patience to delve into newspaper archives &c. I think this proposal has some issues but sourcing is probably not the main issue. bobrayner (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess it depends how far back in time we're looking, and how comprehensive we want the list to be. Actually, I think some relatively recent information will be hard to come by, particularly when it comes to small or under-developed countries. Even with recent events such as the International recognition of South Sudan, there is confusion over whether countries have recognised, just given a welcoming statement, or done nothing. I think it will be surprisingly difficult to get all of the necessary data, and without completeness, the articles will not be worthwhile. Bazonka (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I can see that in certain cases this might be useful, but probably only in limited circumstances. However, if you do go ahead with it, would it be worthwhile to incorporate such information into the "List of diplomatic missions of/in" (eg. List of diplomatic missions of France), rather than creating a series of new articles? International recognition and the existence of diplomatic missions surely go hand-in-hand. Maethordaer (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, recognition and the establishment of diplomatic relations are not the same thing and don't always go hand-in-hand. The "Foreign relations of..." articles may be more appropriate. Bazonka (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The use of the template could be extended with greater use actually. For example when listing countries belonging to some international organization, you can list all other relations. For instance for NATO you can also list EU memberships. So the template could have a broader usage than what is originally proposed. The problem I really have is where such membership info is presented in an unstructured manner which is painful to read through. -- とある白い猫 chi? 11:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

African Union
This organization needs a logo that the reader can associate with it. Its official logo is supposedly copyrighted (I call that BS as flags of IGOs are typically uncopyright-able as involved countries do not want to deal with it for various reasons (such as determining the owner of the copyright)). I think a detailed discussion of this is warranted particularly for the new (2010) flag which will probably be revised for the newest member, South Sudan. -- とある白い猫 chi? 02:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A copyrighted image may be used on en.wikipedia, in a limited way. What's the alternative? Making up a new logo would be original research of the worst kind.
 * Where is a logo needed - any articles (or templates) in particular? bobrayner (talk) 03:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Articles and templates alike needs some sort of a placeholder image. Something associate-able with African union perhaps (such as the map of members maybe). It remains to be a problem.
 * I am not sure the image is copyrighted as it is an international organization. Who would be suing us? Individual countries do not hold the copyright. Same deal with NATO flag or UN flag.
 * -- とある白い猫 chi? 00:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. There is too much risk-aversion on Wikipedia when it comes to the use of images like this. Unless the inclusion of the African Union flag in articles brings the Union into disrepute (which it wouldn't do), then no-one is ever going to complain. The risk is virtually nil. I say use the image. Bazonka (talk) 07:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is the image is marked as "fair-use" rather than freely licensed like all other flags which is the limiting factor. That needs to be sorted out, otherwise copyright patrol would eventually remove it. -- とある白い猫 chi? 16:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:Diplomats
I have removed Template:Diplomats from all the articles in which it was placed back in July 2011. The "navbox" is huge, and was placed at the top of almost all the articles it was on. There was no project header on its empty talk page, so I am coming here as it seems to be the project that would cover such a template. Would such a template be useful as standard navbox footer (with suitable modifications), or should it simply be TFDed? - BilCat (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it could be usable if rearranged as you say. Not the most valuable template in the world, though. If it got TfD'd, I would happily stand aside; perhaps something better might be created at some point in the distant future. bobrayner (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

arbcom case proposed decision
Hi, I have written up a proposed decision which touches on international relations. Please see Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Proposed decision (and the section that follows) and the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Proposed decision. Critical feedback wanted. ;-) -- John Vandenberg (chat) 19:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent rearrangements on missions lists
Another editor and I just spent a fair amount of time on the numerous diplomatic missions lists reverting what looked to be a campaign to get Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Cyprus and (above all) Turkey placed under a "Europe" heading. The changes are being pushed by two users: and, who appear to be co-ordinating their efforts.

Having been reverted by at least five editors on different pages, one of them has posted a set of rants on different talk pages—with everything from IGO-membership to other pages on Wikipedia to genocide (?) being cited as argument. Given that one has already been blocked for edit-warring and the other has hit 3RR on more than a couple of pages, I think it would be best if a centralised discussion is initiated here and, per editing policies, the changes are not repeated until a consensus is reached.  Night w   06:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Noraton didn't seem to be making the same edits as XLR8TION, rather they were placing the middle east as a subcategory of asia, a far more defensible action (in my opinion fo course). The problem with these lists is that they could contain a huge number of entries which people feel should be divided. This is invariably done with continents. While I would like some sot of division by actual importance of relations (eg. other EU states, other ASEAN states) that would have similar issues (overlapping organisations, organisations with debatable importance). So continents or single list? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right, Noraton was concentrating on the Middle East (which is perfectly acceptable), but s/he was making some of the same edits ( here is an example). I think single lists would be a good idea, but I think the method of grouping states by region is also helpful to the reader. Maybe a table, with entries sorted alphabetically but the ability to sort by region, and by international membership also... I know that sounds like I've just destroyed your solution, but since entries would default appear alphabetically, I think that could work as a compromise.  Night w   12:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I see. That fiddly definition of Middle East again. Which regions would be good to sort with though? I can't imagine imposing a standard system on all countries, Bhutan's diplomatic relations would be very geographically different to Ecuador's. (Not least because apparently Bhutan only has five, but hey, wikipedia has an article on Bhutanese diplomatic missions!) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, I started the DMBC (Diplomatic Mission by Country) articles back in 2006. While I do not expect the rules to remain the same over time, and I have somewhat kept a low profile and let others have their turn, I am happy to give some suggestions based on my experience.
 * consistency is your friend. The world is a complicated place, but in contributing to the DMBC articles try to stick to a simple rule that everybody can work with and will accept.
 * the biggest problem are people with single interest issues who want the DMBC articles to fit with their own world view, even if they actually contribute very little to the articles. If you can develop a strong, well grounded rule and apply it consistently, it is easier to assauge their concerns.  THe last thing you want are debates to be played out on DMBC.  Nor do *you* want to be forced to make edits to 200+ articles to ensure consistency to a rule that the proponent normally has no interest in contributing to its implementation.
 * don't try to over-complicate the articles. Don't pick honorary consulates, because some countries have hundreds of these sinecures all over the world. Don't add ambassadors, because many are non-resident and therefore do not reflect the actual location of missions.  Don't add missions that are "opening soon", because whatever new embassy is promised in the overly optimistic press release of 2008 may not ever become bricks and mortar.
 * Use generic terms like "diplomatic missions", not "embassies, consulates, high commissions, representative offices etc"
 * the plural of "consulate general" is "consulates general"
 * stick to the United Nations Geoscheme definition of continents. It is simple, apolitical and there is no other organisation in the world which is as prominent of the United Nation which does not
 * Sovereignty is a cardinal issue for many. Proponents for or against Northern Cyprus, Taiwan, Abkhazia etc make their mark here.  The key rule is that as long as one other country in the world which is a UN member recognises a geographical entity, then that geographical entity's diplomatic network can be represented here.
 * happy to discuss further ! Kransky (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, maybe there are situations where it wouldn't really be helpful. But if you look at the Bhutan list (hell, even the Tuvalu "list"), we already do it anyway. Maybe just stick with the regions we use now?  Night w   12:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

International trade
One thing I noticed is that international trade-related articles were not marked as being a part of the project. I just marked a bunch of theorems and stuff, so now they are in the project WhisperToMe (talk) 05:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Questions
I have several questions:

1. Should the dash between countries in foreign relations be with space or without?
 * Uzbekistan – United States relations (with space, if you ask me, better looking, United States have this for all articles of relations)
 * Greece–Iceland relations (without space, a majority of articles)

2. Should we create redirect for articles in both ways?
 * Israel–Japan relations default article
 * Japan-Israel relations missing redirect

3. Should we have articles about relations of all states with all other states? Isn't the international relation notable for its self for separate article, if its referenced?

4. Do we have some Manual of Style for these articles?

Thanks in advance, and i would love to hear at least several different opinions. All best! -- WhiteWriter speaks 16:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * 1. The general manual of style says that two names are joined with the meaning "and" or "vs" using an unspaced n-dash, even if there are spaces in one of the two names. However, it looks like when we use the adjective form, such as "Franco–British", we should use an unspaced hyphen instead.
 * 2. Redirects are cheap, so we might as well create redirects for both orders of names. You could even create them for hyphens and dashes, and for adjective and noun forms if you think it will help people.
 * 3. We don't need every possible combination of states. This pages says that we only need an article when: 1, they have been engaged in a war, 2, they engage in significant trade, 3, they have been/are in an alliance, 4, they share a border, 5, they have been engaged in a significant diplomatic conflict, or 6, they have been engaged in a significant trade dispute. Do not bother creating an article about Lesotho–Palau relations.
 * 4. Stanardizing series of articles is the job of wikiprojects, like this one. This page has a section called "Bilateral relations" with some general guidelines for those kinds of articles. Feel free to expand upon those guidelines if you have some ideas for how to standardize them. If you want to make any major changes to the guidelines, you might want to discuss them here first.
 * I hope that helps. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Creating an article on every possible combination of states is just a pointless attempt at box-filling; it's hardly building encyclopædic content. You might as well create Railway stations in Yemen or Scouting on Norfolk Island. On the other hand, if you have substantial sources on a particular pairing, that's great - it enables quality content and it demonstrates notability. bobrayner (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, "Do not bother creating an article about Lesotho–Palau relations", brilliant. Also amused by Bobrayner's deletion rationale for the Railway stations in Yemen article. Even though separate articles aren't created, some non-notable relationships can have enough notability to be included in the respective Foreign relations of X articles. Redirects can point to one of those pages (first alphabetically?) if so desired. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we should go a step further and look for ways to create redirects for (within reason) the variety of ways in which users might search for a bilateral relations article.

For instance, the properly named article is Norway–United States relations. The redirect is  #redirectNorway–United States relations 
 * Norway – United States relations
 * United States – Norway relations
 * Norway United States relations
 * United States Norway relations
 * Norway US relations
 * US Norway relations
 * Norway - US relations
 * US - Norway relations
 * US-Norway relations
 * Norway-US relations
 * Norway-United States relations
 * United States-Norway relations

It would be fairly easy to whip up a table of these in Excel and paste it into a wikipage. I have been meaning to get around to doing it myself, unless someone else wants to take a stab at it. KConWiki (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles being renamed from "X (international relations)" to "X in international relations" and more
A group of articles have recently been renamed, eg from Neorealism (international relations) to Neorealism in international relations. I'm not an expert on international relations, but it seems to me that this misrepresents them: Neorealism is the concept, and it's a concept within international relations (as compared to concepts which use the same word in other fields), while the "in" formulation would be more appropriate for "Foreign language skills in international relations" or something like that. Postcolonialism and international relations theory has been renamed as Postcolonialism in international relations which does not seem to be the same thing. I'm raising it at the user's talk page but thought I'd mention it here too. Pam D  12:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Layout of U.S. Ambassador to xxx articles
Observation: There are several different ways that the lists of U.S. ambassadors to different countries are laid out.

Some, like United States Ambassador to Belgium are done with bullet points. Others, like United States Ambassador to Venezuela, are done as tables. A few, like United States Ambassador to New Zealand, are more elaborate tables. I am re-creating all three examples below for easy comparison. What do we think about some sort of standardization? KConWiki (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

United States Chargés d'Affaires to Belgium

 * Hugh S. Legaré 1832–1836
 * Virgil Maxcy 1837–1842
 * Henry Washington Hilliard 1842–1844
 * Thomas Green Clemson 1844–1851
 * Richard H. Bayward 1851–1853
 * J.J. Seibels 1852–1854

United States Ministers Resident to Belgium

 * J.J. Seibels 1854–1856
 * Elisha Y. Fair 1858–1861
 * Henry Shelton Sanford 1861–1869
 * Joseph Russell Jones 1869–1875
 * Ayres Phillips Merrill 1876–1877
 * William C. Goodloe 1878–1880
 * James O. Putnam 1880–1882
 * Nicolas Fish 1882–1885
 * Lambert Tree 1885–1888

United States Envoys Extraordinary and Ministers Plenipotentiary to Belgium

 * Lambert Tree 1888
 * John G. Parkhurst 1888–1889
 * Edwin H. Terrell 1889–1893
 * James S. Ewing 1893–1897
 * Bellamy Storer 1897–1899
 * Lawrence Townsend 1899–1905
 * Henry Lane Wilson 1905–1909
 * Charles Page Bryan 1909–1911
 * Larz Anderson 1911–1912
 * Theodore Marburg 1912–1914
 * Brand Whitlock 1914–1919

United States Ambassadors to Belgium

 * Brand Whitlock 1919–1921
 * Henry P. Fletcher 1922–1924
 * William Phillips 1924–1927
 * Hugh S. Gibson 1927–1933
 * Dave Hennen Morris 1933–1937
 * Hugh S. Gibson 1937–1938
 * Joseph E. Davies 1938–1939
 * John Cudahy 1940
 * Anthony Joseph Drexel Biddle, Jr. 1941–1943
 * Charles W. Sawyer 1944–1945
 * Alan Goodrich Kirk 1946–1949
 * Robert Daniel Murphy 1949–1952
 * Myron Melvin Cowen 1952–1953
 * Frederick M. Alger, Jr. 1953–1957
 * John Clifford Folger 1957–1959
 * William A. M. Burden 1959–1961
 * Douglas MacArthur II 1961–1965
 * Ridgway B. Knight 1965–1969
 * John S. D. Eisenhower 1969–1971
 * Robert Strausz-Hupé 1972–1974
 * Leonard Firestone 1974–1977
 * Anne Cox Chambers 1977–1981
 * Charles H. Price II 1981–1983
 * Geoffrey Swaebe 1983–1988
 * Maynard W. Glitman 1988–1991
 * Bruce Gelb 1991–1993
 * Alan Blinken 1993–1997
 * Paul L. Cejas 1997–2001
 * Stephen Brauer 2001–2003
 * Tom C. Korologos 2004–2007
 * Sam Fox 2007–2009
 * Wayne Bush 2009
 * Howard W. Gutman 2009–Present

Clarification of definition of "Ambassador" for category purposes
I would like to start reviewing the individual lists of U.S. Ambassadors to individual countries to verify that each of the ambassadors listed who already have wiki pages have the appropriate "United States Ambassador to..." category listed on their pages.

For instance, for Karl Eikenberry, I edited his page to make sure that he was categorized as a U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan.

However, there are a number of figures who were not full ambassadors, but were Ministers or Envoys. Should the pages for those persons be put into the appropriate Ambassador(s) categories or not? Example: Caesar A. Rodney was Minister Plenipotentiary to Argentina. Should his page have the Category:Ambassadors of the United States to Argentina or not? KConWiki (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge of Mandate Palestine into British Mandate for Palestine
In 2010, the article "Mandate Palestine" was forked out of "British Mandate for Palestine" article(member of wikiproject international relations), becoming an identical article since. Due to the almost complete overlap (technically both articles describe a former Mandatory geopolitical entity of Palestine under British rule, which has only one article in other languages) and ongoing confusion (some insisted that "British Mandate for Palestine" is more the name of a 1922 document and not a country), i propose to merge Mandate Palestine into British Mandate for Palestine, and make an additional article named British Mandate for Palestine (document) to prevent confusion between the document and the geopolitical entity. Please vote with a proper reasoning Talk:Mandate Palestine.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Rating and Feedback Requested
I'm looking at the Reactions_to_the_death_of_Osama_bin_Laden article, and I was hoping that this project could look at the article, and rate it. In addition, I'm hoping for any thoughts on what can bring the rating up to GA or FA status on the Talk Page. Thank you in advance for your feedback. 24.11.87.186 (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month
Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:International relations will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in international relations. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Foreign relations of South Sudan - should the article list recognition dates?
You might want to join the discussion at Talk:Foreign relations of South Sudan. There is a difference of opinion over whether the dates that countries announced their recognition of South Sudan should be included. Bazonka (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

title format
A lot of our titles are quite awkward, such as Saint Vincent and the Grenadines–United States relations. I know this is a fudge to prevent arguments, but it's a lowest-common denominator fudge: at least "Relations between Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and the United States" would be natural English, even if a bit formal. I've brought it up for discussion at WP:AT. — kwami (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Editing the International Monetary Fund Page
After reading through the current International Monetary Fund, I feel that the page portrays the IMF too narrowly and omits many of the main controversies. Not all of the perspectives on the IMF are included or even touched upon. The IMF is a very large, well-known, and powerful international organization. Understanding the IMF’s lending in terms of the conditions and policy implications is crucial for developing awareness and education about this organization. I am adding a section on Lending including the benefits and consequences of conditionality, and sections on Leadership, Reforms, and Decision making. The new Leadership section will include a brief history of the past Managing Directors and some of the criticisms they’ve received as well as the distribution of voting power. The existing criticisms section needs to be edited in order to include more credible sources. The Member States and Membership sections can be combined with a subsection about quotas. Let me know your thoughts! QuincyC (talk) 05:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Edits to Peacebuilding
I'm planning on editing the Peacebuilding article as part of a Poverty, Justice and Human Capabilities course at Rice University. I added the page to this WikiProject because conflict is a major issue in IR and peacebuilding aims to create a sustainable peace by addressing the issues underlying the conflict instead of just preventing fighting from starting up again as peacekeeping does. The article is currently a stub with no sections or references and lacks a lot of vital information like a history of peacebuilding and analysis of the results of peacebuilding. I plan to address these issues with my expansion (see the Peacebuilding discussion page for details) and would greatly appreciate any feedback on my plans. Thanks! Nadhika99 (talk) 05:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

New Article Gender Inequality Index
I am a student at the University of Utah taking a class on Gender Economic Development and as part of my course work I am planning on creating the article Gender inequality Index (GII) which is a new measurement of gender discrimination built off of the same framework as the Human Development Index (HDI). The (GII) is a replacement for the Gender-related Development Index and the Gender Empowerment Measure which have been the primary measurements of gender inequality since 1995. The (GII) exposes gender discrimination using three dimensions; reproductive health, empowerment, and the labor market whereas the Gender-related Development Index and the Gender Empowerment Measure which focused on income levels and left out other aspects of inequality. The (GII) is used in conjunction with the Human Development Index (HDI) and can not be used independently. Depending on the level of the (GII) it negatively impacts the Human Development Index (HDI) score and because no country has perfect gender equality all countries are negatively impacted. I feel the (GII) is an extremely important topic to cover among the Wikipedia community and a good contribution in the areas of Gender Studies, International Development, Economics, and the United Nations projects. Any comments or suggestions are greatly appreciated and welcome. (Teashias (talk) 04:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC))

On NGOs
I found a World Bank article on NGOs and peacebuilding WhisperToMe (talk) 08:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTSOCIALDEVELOPMENT/Resources/244362-1164107274725/3182370-1164110717447/Civil_Society_and_Peacebuilding.pdf
 * http://www.webcitation.org/66HBYyDiq

Indo–Iranian relations
Hi guys, I've just noticed that a history of moves has left an article at Indo-Iranian relations and its talk page at Talk:Indo–Iranian relations. I thought you had a naming convention on the use of hyphen versus dash but I can't see one now, and it may need an admin to make the move but whichever way it goes - the article and its talk page need to end up with the same name. That article is probably worth watchlisting in any case as its a high-profile relationship at the moment with India trying to get round some of the sanctions on Iranian oil. FlagSteward (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Great power article
It seems the great power article has been abandoned and it's me against a silly annon IP editor (who I believe to be a well known trouble-maker who's been banned several times for playing similar games in the past). Can someone please assist? Also he's being an idiot with the main template for the great power article (that showing the great powers over time) reverting a perfectly good edit (which puts it all onto one 'view') initially made not by me. Please can I have some assistance? This is a notable article and has been under attack before. David (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Indophobia
The article is on anti-Indian sentiments across the world, though it doesn't imply so in the lead. Three quick searches using google books, google scholar and google news has shed a completely new light on the subject. There is hardly any use of the term that relates to any of India's neighbors - Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, or Sri lanka. It is a concept from 19th century, and the only significant 20th century use is pertinent to Eastern Africa. Putting together all instances of anti-indian sentiments across South Asia may be an example of WP:SYNTH (there in more reference to Indophobia associated with Papua New Guinea than Bangladesh). Making the collection of those instances the larger part of the article may be an example of WP:UNDUE. The material on those sentiments and instances are good to be merged into individual foreign relation articles. May be this is another misunderstanding like Indosphere. Aditya (talk • contribs) 04:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Self determination
Saw a request for review of this article back in 2006 in the international law WP. Didn't have time to review it myself now, but agreed it's subject fell within IL. Though I haven't been involved with this WP, I didn't see how the subject would not be of interest to the IR WP. The article currently has a C class from prior reviews. I set importance as high, but would not disagree with a top importance. IMHO (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Pacific Century
I'm about to take a look at it. Anyone fancy giving me a hand on it is welcome! ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 21:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Globalization proposal
Hi WikiProject International relations members, A few of us are trying to get a WikiProject Globalization up and running. Members of this project would work together to improve the quality of articles on Wikipedia on Globalization, global issues and related topics. If you're interested in globalization, please come by and check out our proposal. We'd appreciate any feedback about our ideas, and of course your support if you were interested in lending it. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

A few discussions that may be of interest
Both of these discussions (article and category) have to do with whether geography (in this case, the British isles) is a useful and notable way to categorize or discuss politics. --KarlB (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) deletion review of Politics in the British Isles
 * 2) Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_21

Globalization
The article Globalization has undergone major re-structuring. WikiProject International relations members are invited to review and comment on the article and add relevant missing information or sections in which your project may have an interest. Also, you may be interested in reviewing the updated WikiProject Council/Proposals/Globalization proposal for a new WikiProject. Regards, Meclee (talk) 14:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2011
Hi. The Wikimedia Foundation received a courtesy notice from the United States Department of State advising that their 2011 Human Rights Reports for 199 countries have been released. Naturally, they imagine we might be interested in the information or links for potential inclusion in Wikipedia articles:. (They have similar reports related to Human Rights here.)

The person who contacted us noted that many articles don't seem to address human rights issues on countries and adds that "Given the prominence that discussions of human rights in global affairs, I would respectfully submit that it’s worth a chapter heading for major countries."

Since the Wikimedia Foundation does not create or curate content in the articles, this is, of course, a community matter. I'm passing along the information to your project and a few others (WikiProject Human rights; WikiProject Countries; WikiProject Politics) in case you find the information useful or in case her suggestion spurs discussion. If there's a better place that you know of, please feel free to pass it on. :)

Thanks! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

New WikiProject Globalization
WikiProject_Globalization is a new project to improve Wikipedia's coverage of aspects of Globalization and the organization of information and articles on this topic. This page and its subpages contain their suggestions and various resources; it is hoped that this project will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians interested in the topic. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Meclee (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Council/Eurasian Union/
Please, join the discussion. -- Wusten  fuchs  23:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Ecuador–United Kingdom relations
I was wondering if it is time to start an article on it. That diplomatic tiff in London seems to make covering it to a fuller extent a good idea. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Sort keys for " in international relations" categories
I was planning to create some of the missing (non-empty) " in international relations" categories, but I noticed that the sort keys for the existing year categories in the parent " in international relations" categories are inconsistent. For the 21st century the individual year categories are divided by decade; for the 10th to 15th centuries and the 20th century they're all sorted under "*"; for the 16th to 19th centuries, they're all sorted under "1", and for centuries before the 10th century, there's a mixture. What is the preferred sorting scheme? (I'm possibly prepared to update all the non-conforming categories to the preferred scheme). P.S. Feel free to advertise this discussion at other relevant WikiProjects. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 02:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

New category
Category:Infobox bilateral relations usage without maps tracks articles that use Infobox bilateral relations but which do not have an associated map. At the moment, there are 245 articles without maps. --Illia Connell (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Portal?
Would anyone be interested in starting Portal:International relations? We have a French portal at fr:Portail:Relations internationales and also one in Portuguese WhisperToMe (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I would be interested in helping with that, though I may need some assistance. I imagine I could largely copy the format of the French one, and perhaps even just translate much of its content? Numera astra (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

A skeletal portal has been created at Portal:International relations. It's still under construction, and I'm still trying to read through the instructions to figure out how to populate and title all the boxes properly. Any help in this endeavor would be greatly appreciated. Keihatsu (talk) 03:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for starting it! WhisperToMe (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Expatriate, Emigrant and people "of descent" categories
I am sure this is not the first time this question has come up here, but does this project claim any sort of oversight on categories such as Category:American expatriates in Sweden, Category:People of Moroccan descent and Category:Italian emigrants to Brazil? I ask because I am looking for existing standards on these categories. I am mostly an editor for the various basketball projects, and players commonly move across borders so these types of categories are use a lot. Lately I have noticed some category heirarchy that doesn't make sense to me. For example, in the case of the American expatriates in Sweden category, it is a sub-category of Category:Swedish people of American descent. That does not seem correct to me - an American expatriate by definition is not a "Swedish person." This structure seems to exist for many of these categories. My other question is about categories like "People of Moroccan descent." What has prompted me to ask for clarity is that this category has caused a minor edit war on Mike Flynn (basketball). This is the case of an American citizen born to American parents in Casablanca. I would think he wouldn't qualify for "of Moroccan descent" just because he happened to be born there, but would prefer to follow an existing standard and be able to put this to rest. Can anyone here help me? Am I in the right place to bring these things? Rikster2 (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Diplomatic mission templates
In the templates found at Lists of diplomatic missions, there are collections of red links in the "Dependencies and other territories" sections, with the exception of Hong Kong, Macau, Cook Islands, Niue, Western Sahara (which is unnecessary since Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is listed), and Madeira (which is discussed at Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 October 12). I don't think that redirects from these links would be useful, and it's even less likely that articles could be written, so I propose that |countries_only=yes be added to the templates on the various diplomatic mission lists for North America, South America, Europe, and Africa to remove that section. TimBentley (talk) 22:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. This is the kind of situation for which the "countries_only=yes" parameter is appropriate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with hiding red links in the "Dependencies and other territories" row and with hiding Madeira/Western Sahara redirects, but the links to real articles (for Hong Kong, Macau, Cook Islands, Niue) should not be hidden (e.g. the "show=yes/no" switch should be such that those are still shown. Japinderum (talk) 06:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's why I omitted Asia and Oceania in my suggestion. TimBentley (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I see now. But how will we prevent somebody to create new "wrong" redirects for the Asia/Oceania red links?Japinderum (talk) 11:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Done for Americas, Africa, Europe. Japinderum (talk) 07:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

PROD
I have Prod: Panama–Russia relations, Belize–Russia relations and Russia–San Marino relations because I believe that these articles doesn't respect notability criteria in WP:FOR. Stigni (talk) 08:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Prod contested, I try with an AfD. Stigni (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

International reactions to ...
As can be seen here and here, there are a variety of articles with titles beginning "International reaction to ..." or "International reactions to ..." or "International response to ...". These articles have sometimes been nominated for deletion at WP:AFD.

Examples:
 * Articles for deletion/International reactions to the 2011 Norway attacks, Articles for deletion/International reactions to the 2006 Qana airstrike, Articles for deletion/International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2012 (kept)
 * Articles for deletion/International reaction to Bronze Soldier relocation, Articles for deletion/International reactions to the death of Boris Yeltsin (second nomination) (deleted)
 * Articles for deletion/International reaction to the Inauguration of Barack Obama (redirected)

I would like to suggest that some kind of standards be developed to indicate what kinds of incidents should, or should not, generally have an "International reaction/response" article, and which should not. Such standards do not need to be binding for all cases, but I think it would be preferable to have some guidelines in place. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that one of the factors is size. When an event generates international drama, that can make the main "event" article get very long and unbalanced; I'm not the biggest fan of "international reactions to..." articles, but they are a good place to put some of the lengthier (and more problematic) content whilst keeping the parent article more focussed on what it's supposed to focus on. bobrayner (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Peer Review Request
Peer review has been requested and reviews will be appreciated for the article Globalization. Meclee (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Contribution by wikipedians knowledgeable about diplomacy and international relations would be useful at 2012 Italian shooting talk page.
Hello. Understanding of diplomatic ways, international politics technicalities and international relations subtleties are becoming crucial to correct understanding of relevant facts about 2012 Italian shooting in the Arabian Sea article, which relates to the Enrica Lexie incident. On relative talk page a handful of editors are debating subjects I am afraid not all of them (and perhaps nobody, myself included) know as much as it would be desirable. Therefore, review by somebody more knowledgeable than us on such subjects would certainly help a lot. Thank you in advance. LNCSRG (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI
Featured list removal candidates/List of delegates to the Millennium Summit/archive1. Nergaal (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Bilateral relations of small countries
I'd like to ask for opinions on bilateral relations articles of small countries. I thought that even States as the Cook Islands or Niue should have at least a few representative articles on bilateral relations, see relations on Template:Foreign relations of the Cook Islands and Template:Foreign relations of Niue. But it seems there is great opposition to the creation of such articles. So, for example, Cook Islands could not have any article (except perhaps CI-NZ). It doesn't seem to me completely happy. Supposedly a hundred articles have already been deleted. First article about bilateral relations of CI (article CI-CZ rel.) is nominated for deletion. I wanted to contribute to mapping relationships of CI+N. Perhaps I'm wrong. Can you please write me your comments? Thank you very much. Jan CZ (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have sources? If there are sufficient sources to show that a particular country-pair's relations a re notable, then it should be possible to write good sourced content. I suspect some articles on bilateral relations may have been deleted because they were created by rote, as placeholders, rather than being actual encyclopædia articles on notable topics. bobrayner (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have some sources, and I considered article as Cook Islands–Czech Republic relations as notable topic. But most editors has the opposite opinion. Honestly, I don't know how to create articles (which). I don't see the objective criteria for the assessment of notability (of relations of very small countries-no trade, no embassies..). And with rigour of other editors will not be possible create any article on CI or N bilateral relations.. Which strikes me as a mistake? Thanks. Jan CZ (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What sources discuss "relations between the Cook Islands and Czech republic" in depth..? bobrayner (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I know that the Cook Islands has direct diplomatic relations (ie, not mediated through NZ) with about 25 states plus the EU. But there are few sources that discuss the CI's relations with a single one of these states. There are some. The Czech Republic and the Cook Islands established relations in 2008, so it would have to be a very new source if it exists. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Ambassadors of X to Y categories
I recently started a CfD about Category:Heads of Missions of the United Kingdom where the following consensus formed. Before implementing this, I'm hoping to get additional input from people here who did not participate in the CfD. Task number 1 is easy to do for a bot. Task number 2 obviously is not although we could ask a bot to add some standard bit of text to the relevant categories to reflect the change in scope. (Something along the lines of "This category includes Ambassadors and other top-ranking diplomatic envoys of country X to country Y") Pichpich (talk) 14:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Categories of the form Category:High Commissioners of Canada to the United Kingdom (i.e. two countries of the Commonwealth) should be placed in all four Category:High Commissioners of Canada,  Category:High Commissioners to the United Kingdom, Category:Ambassadors of Canada,  Category:Ambassadors to the United Kingdom. The idea is to make it easier for readers to find the category for diplomatic representatives of Canada in the UK while preserving Category:High Commissioners of Canada as a subcategory of Category:Canada and the Commonwealth of Nations.
 * 2) The scope of categories of the form "Ambassadors of country X to country Y" should be expanded to include heads of mission of country X to country Y whether or not they had the Ambassador title. (In many instances, this is already implemented.) This is a slight abuse of terminology if we use ambassador in its strict Congress of Vienna sense but it's the standard usage in common parlance. It's also not uncommon to find references, especially older ones, that use "Ambassador" and "Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary" interchangeably. Basically this change would make it easier for readers to find what they're looking for.

AfD
Serbia-Venezuela relations appears to be under AfD because http://www.correodelorinoco.gob.ve/politica/serbia-profundiza-relaciones-venezuela/ is not interesting enough. Does WikiProject International relations have a specific burden before an article can exist? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's a special notability rule for this which overrides the GNG. However, Serbia-Venezuela relations seems to have been a redirect since 2009 - where's the AfD? bobrayner (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Serbia–Venezuela relations (2nd nomination). It was kept. Not exactly the two most obscure or boring countries in the world. There were sources, but they were partly in Spanish and Serbian. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Unaccompanied asylum seeking children
Hello! I am in the process of creating a new Wikipedia page focusing on unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, also known as separated children or unaccompanied refugee minors. I chose to join this WikiProject because it is one of the projects monitoring the Refugee page here on Wikipedia as well.

As unrest continues in much of the world, more refugees are attempting to leave their countries of origin for a safer existence elsewhere. Despite their clear need, unaccompanied asylum-seeking children (UASC) are becoming a more politically contentious issue. Particularly within the last few years, the economic recession has led to a wider xenophobia and dislike of immigrants through much of the developed world. This unfortunately extends to asylum seekers in many OECD countries, especially within the European Union. Asylum seekers are characterized as free-riders who do not actually need asylum, and are simply attempting to exploit OECD countries’ resources. A Wikipedia page on unaccompanied asylum-seeking children could have a positive impact on many people’s understanding of who exactly is seeking asylum in many of these countries. UASC in particular receive comparatively little media attention despite their need for greater care, so a page devoted to them specifically is a needed source of information for people in many countries.

A Wikipedia page in particular is important in addressing the issue of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. Most information that is readily available online comes from nonprofits who work with these children. Though this is clearly an important and frequently valid source of information, asylum detractors are unlikely to see these nonprofits as providing truthful information surrounding separated children. However, a Wikipedia page might be seen as an unbiased source and could work to educate even people who are against asylum on the unaccompanied asylum-seeking children within their countries.

I considered whether it would be better to add this page as a section of “asylum seeker” but ultimately decided that a UASC Wikipedia entry needed to stand on its own. I do think that a page devoted entirely to UASC is necessary in and of itself, since in general separated children are classified separately from asylum seekers, due to their being cared for by their host country’s social services. They receive far different treatment than other asylum seekers and refugees, and therefore have a vastly different experience of the refugee process. Furthermore, asylum is such a contentious political issue that I think that adding a section on unaccompanied asylum-seeking children to the asylum seeker page would be seen as a political act more than an encyclopedic one by some of the page’s users. Though I will certainly link to the page, I think that the issues surrounding separated children are distinct enough that UASC really need an entire separate entry in order to fully explore the issues.

I appreciate any insight into this issue that is available! Thank you for your consideration and for your help.

Allisonraven (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Diplomat stub articles
We have a large number of stub articles about international diplomats that clearly don't meet the notability standard of WP:DIPLOMAT. At the moment we're discussing how to process these using a bot, please see the discussion here. Thanks. -- Klein zach  02:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)