YOU CAN EDIT THIS PAGE! Just click any blue "Edit" link and start writing!

Talk:Middle East

From Wikitravel
Revision as of 07:36, 11 May 2007 by Cacahuate (talk | contribs) (African countries)
Jump to: navigation, search

African countries

I know that the boundaries of the Middle East are somewhat open to interpretation, but as far as the traveler is concerned, I think Egypt and Sudan should be considered Africa, so I've removed them from this page. I also removed Turkey, since we included it on the Mediterranean Europe page and its accompanying map. – cacahuate talk 19:43, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Ok, actually on closer inspection it seems that we've included only a part of Turkey in Mediterranean Europe... conversation continued at: Talk:Turkey#Who.27s_your_daddy.3Fcacahuate talk 02:58, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
I added Turkey to the Middle East earlier today. I feel strongly that it belongs there, 100 years ago most of the region was ruled by the Turks. This is not to say it should not also be included in Mediterraenean Europe. Pashley 03:36, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Dear Pashley Turkey it isnt in mid-east because mid-east is Arapic region and Turkey isnt in mid-east even israil firstly Turks are secular and Turks dont have any religion and Turkish race belong europid/touran race accordingly Turkey isnt in mid-east please visit to and United region page or official web( or( thanx for ure understanding and for ure effort. by :aegeanfihter
I agree that Turkey is largely a European country and the isIn link for Turkey should point to Mediterranean Europe. However, to me, it is also an important part of the Middle east region, one of the main players there, former ruler of most of it. So we also need links to Turkey from this article.
We have a policy Wikitravel:The_traveller_comes_first; I think that is the test. If a friend was planning a trip to the Middle East and asked for advice, I'd certainly suggest visiting Turkey. That is why I think it belongs here. Pashley 06:15, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
cyprus is in mid-east look at map,if u removed to cyprus u must remove to Turkey too.
Ya know, I think we're going to need to come to some sort of agreement on where to place these places and stick to it... and not from a historical point of view necessarily, but from a traveler's point of view right now. I know there's some that straddle the line between regions, but it works out much simpler as far as a travel guide goes to have it be in one or the other. I think Turkey and Cyprus should both be in the Europe article should be in the Mediterranean Europe "countries" list, and then in the Turkey and Cyprus articles we can mention it's relevance or whatever to the Middle East in the Understand section or in the intro. And remove them both from the Middle East article. At least from the list anyway. Thoughts? – cacahuate talk 00:44, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
I agree. The "Countries" lists indicate our (somewhat arbitrary, but carefully considered) decision of which region each place "belongs" in from a travel perspective. Given Cyprus' EU membership and Turkey's EU candidacy, that's (Mediterranean) Europe. For countries we've put in one region but it was a difficult choice and they're often considered part of another region, we should have a brief explanation to that effect at the end of the list. - Todd VerBeek 09:05, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Would we then remove Russia from Asia? Removing it from either Europe or Asia would significantly reduce either continent ;) I certainly understand the advantage of avoiding overlapping regions, but Turkey (as well as Russia) seems like straightforward exceptions. Listing Turkey in both the Middle East and Europe is a practical way of indexing the country (in regions for which the country is very often on a traveler's itinerary) and does not cause any significant content overlap, which is the concern of the "avoid overlap" policy. We have to be arbitrary with the breadcrumbs, but here I see no need or even utility. --Peterfitzgerald Talk 12:03, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Exception yes, but how to handle exceptions so far seems to be by putting them in one region or another, not both. But you've got me thinking, other than breadcrumb nav, why can't something be in two regions? obviously it would be a mess to have too many things overlapping, but for a few countries like these that really are on the cusp, would it hurt anything to have them on the maps for both regions? That may even be more helpful for the traveler. Hhhhmmmm.... – cacahuate talk 03:32, 11 May 2007 (EDT)