Talk:List of diplomatic missions of Russia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Russia / Politics and law (Rated List-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force.
 
WikiProject International relations (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Ties to countries in the developing world[edit]

I remember reading that the SU had cut off ties to some African nations. Now, does that mean that the SU/Russia broke all diplimatic ties or abandoned the embassies? Or was it just a cut off of aid?

Just because a country cuts off aid does not necessarily mean it has closed its embassy. Kransky 02:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

-G

Russia does have an office in Lingayen[edit]

Russia does have an office in Lingayen because during the 14th National Student Convention in Lingayen, Pangasinan my girlfriend Yelena (she`s a Russian living in the Philippines) lost her Russian Passport in Lingayen in so doing local authorities told her to go to the Russian office in Lingayen. I also accompanied her. Yelena showed the her Russian papers and the office passed on the info to the Russian embassy in Manila where we live. I even accompanied her.

The consular list, maintained by the Philippines Department of Foreign Affairs, would be an authorative source. It cannot substantiate your claims that Russia has any diplomatic presence in the Philippines beyond its Embassy in the Philippines. Kransky (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Inaccuracy[edit]

the list is extremely inaccurate. For example, Russia has no embassies in Belize or in Trinidad and Tobago. On http://www.mid.ru/zu_r.nsf/straweb (or in the Russian wiki) you can find a more accurate list, maybe not updated, but definitey more correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.120.161 (talk) 11:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The list is also nothing more than a directory listing, with absolutely no context. I have reformatted the list, of course using official sources, not third-party inaccurate commercial sources - you can view the reformatted list at this diff, but that has been reverted to an article with little to no context, and only the most basic information. --Россавиа Диалог 11:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The only difference in your diff is just a list of Russian Ambassadors that you added. As I have mentioned before, this information should exist elsewhere (something like Ambassadors of the Russian Federation akin to Ambassadors of the United States). The issue of directory listing has been debated before. Kransky (talk) 11:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
There are plenty of differences between my reformatted list and the list as it stands now, those differences being:
  • It is referenced to reliable sources, note the non existence of Belize and Trinidad and Tobago in my list, yet the appearance in your preferred list - T&T is represented by the Russian embassy in Guyana, and Belize via Mexico. Also the existence of Taiwan in the list is not verifiable. Where is the Russian mission to the CIS? etc, etc. In short, the list as it stands now fails verification in many aspects.
  • My list is full sortable, by country name, city locate, mission type, and ambassador
  • My list provides an easy format for others to follow, particularly in adding wikilinks to the individual mission articles where applicable
  • My list provides more information, yes, such as current ambassadors, and provides for further article development.

You have in the single previous discussion failed to provide a real reason why this reformatted list is not good. If you want to open it to outside discussion, by way of RFC or whatever, that's an option, because it may be that others' opinions are needed --Россавиа Диалог 17:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I will explain again. These articles are about diplomatic missions. They are not about ambassadors. They are not about bilateral relationships per se. Ever since these articles were given their names their scope has been clearly defined. If you want to add your information about ambassadors I recommend you create an article called Ambassadors of the Russian Federation (or whatever) and move your information there. Happy to raise it to RFC if you are seeking wider judgement on this issue. Kransky (talk) 10:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
If you need a MID reference see this orthis (in English). Happy? Kransky (talk) 08:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
No, because that is the Canadian consulate, not the diplomatic protocol service of the MID. Also, the existence of ROC flag on this article is problematic, as the source you provided puts that office in China, not Taiwan, and the existence of flag can lead one to assume Russia recognises ROC, which it doesn't. And furthermore, you yourself insist on not covering honorary consulates, trade offices, cultural offices, etc, etc and the office in Taipei is not accredited, and handles trade and cultural issues only at a non-governmental level, although it does handle visa applications, etc. Not a diplomatic mission, at least not as far as Vienna Conventions are concerned. --Россавиа Диалог 02:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually it is a MID source - a Russian consulate in Canada is not a "Canadian Consulate".
Ok, I can understand how a few people might be still be confused. Russia does not recognise the RoC. Neither does around 160 other states. But this does not prevent government-to-government negotiations - at a sufficiently modest and discrete level - to take place. As long as these facilities are not identified as "embassies" but use some other unofficial sounding nomenclature like "trade office", then the PRC can be amenable that Taiwanese Government is sufficiently isolated.
As for the flag (and whether we refer to it as "Taiwan" or "Republic of China") I agree it can be problematic. But if we are listing the host countries, I am guided by the self-identification principle (ie what the host government considers itself to be). Before we even had flags I had "Taiwan" listed - a large number of Taiwanese insisted on the use of "Republic of China" on the basis of this argument.
As long as these Taiwanese offices are for all intents and purposes diplomatic missions, they should remain. I would be wary against changing this rule - there are a lot of Taiwanese out there who would be adamantly opposed to downgrading Taiwan's (faux) diplomatic presence.  :::::Kransky (talk) 07:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Re-introduction of formatted, sortable list[edit]

I have re-introduced the formatted, sortable list into this article for the reasons below:

  1. It is my intent to eventually bring this list to featured list status. It would not be possible to do that with the list as it was before. As per Featured list criteria, this list complies with manual of style guidelines, it is well structured with sortable tables as per #4, it visually looks good by making use of the entire page, photos are constantly being added due to efforts by myself in reaching out to photographers from far-flung corners of the globe.
    Oppose: The current format complies with manual of style guidelines. What you are saying about your format, and your efforts, just as much applies to other contributors. I am not convinced that we would ever complete updating the 180+ articles to comply with the format you are suggesting, leaving the style of the articles to be inconsistent.Kransky (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    Support and comment. Just because current format complies with the MOS does not mean that some other, better, format (which also complies with the MOS) may not exist or be used. If this list is to become featured one day, the bullets will have to go. I myself am all for consistency of formatting, but when the original choice of formatting does not work all that well (the Russian list, in bulleted form, is almost unusable!) other alternatives have to be sought. As far as WP:FOR guidelines go, may I suggest that they be updated to include two separate sets of formatting guidelines: one for the lists in the initial state of development (bulleted form; the way other 180+ lists are now) and one that is more in line with WP:WIAFL (for those lists which are in their advanced stage of development)? This way only the lists which are actively being developed will have to be re-formatted.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  2. The inclusion of ambassadors is a good addition to the list as the ambassadors are part and parcel of a diplomatic mission. Consulate-Generals have been ommitted due to their traditionally holding lower diplomatic ranks and not being as notable as Ambassadors. Updating of ambassadors occurs perhaps three or four times a year and this information is accessible on the MFA website, and in the Russian and foreign press.
    Oppose: We have a whole separate category of articles already (List of Ambassadors and High Commissioners to Canada, List of Ambassadors from Serbia). Wikipedia does not duplicate information. Are you suggesting that we delete or merge those articles instead? Kransky (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    Neutral leaning to support. The separate lists of ambassadors can hold a lot more information about the ambassadors, that much is true. However, I fail to see how listing only the names of the ambassadors with the links to individual articles falls under "duplicate information". It's like saying that something like counties in Maryland should not contain a column listing the county seats because that information is available elsewhere. Having access to the name of the ambassador on the table's embassy line is helpful to readers and I just don't see the logic in withholding that piece.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  3. As a major contributor to Russian foreign relation articles, the list not only acts as a stand-alone list, but also aids myself in development of red-links (this is an important as per WP:LISTS). In this sense, not only is it a stand-alone list, but it also acts an index page (a table of contents page if you will) for the entire "Diplomatc missions of Russia" topical subjects. From this list one can navigate to embassies and ambassadors. Also, by outing myself as a major contributor I am not asserting ownership over this article, but am being WP:BOLD in doing what I believe is best for the list/article, after perusing many featured lists to see how they are set out, etc.
    Oppose: The DMBC articles were written to show diplomatic networks. The were not written to become index pages. Kransky (talk) 13:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    Comment. Could you please clarify why you consider these two goals mutually exclusive (not that I agree that the proposed format amounts to an "index page", mind you)?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  4. Reasoning that if this list is done this way then all lists have to be done the same way is not correctly true. Each article has to stand and fall on its own merits, and the fact that some countries do not publicise the types of information contained in this list should not be reason to hold back development of a list of a country that does provide such information. Also, don't rely on countries to provide you all the information, sometimes research is required, use google news, books, scholar, etc to find the info if the MFA doesn't provide it.
    Oppose: We are consistent for three reasons (a) debates are less likely to emerge if rules are consistently applied; (b) it is easier to compare diplomatic networks when they are presented using the same layout; and (c) it looks professional. Kransky (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    Support and comment. Since when did we start to purposefully dumb down all of the articles in any particular series to the least common denominator for the purpose of, of all things, avoiding debates??! Such approach is contrary to everything Wikipedia stands for. Regarding item b, it is indeed easier to compare diplomatic networks when articles are formatted consistently, but it does not mean that we should never try raising our standards in order to preserve said consistency once it is achieved. On item c, I have to respectfully disagree, as in my opinion the bulleted lists look very amateurish, especially considering the amount of information they are presenting, and can be improved in many ways.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  5. By doing this list this way, I am under no obligation to ensure that all lists are done this way, nor am I required to update all of the other lists/articles. I am not even required to update all articles which may or may not come about as a result of having this list. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and you do what you can. We don't have a time limit by which we have to work to. An example, Mongolia–Russia relations and Russia–Ukraine relations were started by myself as stubs and other editors seeing they existed took it upon themselves to add content. This is what Wikipedia is all about.
    Oppose: "I am under no obligation to ensure that all lists are done this way" is breathtaking in its arrogance. You propose a dramatic change just for one article you are interested in, and then you expect others ("the collaborative effort") over an indefinite time period to make your changes in the 180 other articles! Are you going to be happy when next year somebody with a facination with Zambia starts making his changes to the Zambia article, and starts suggesting your article needs to be reformatted? Or would you just be happy if everybody modifies these articles anyway they want? Kransky (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    Comment. One's willingness to thoroughly work in one particular area is not the same as someone else's suggestion to reformat an article in the series just for the heck of it. "Others" should also be able to recognize when the suggestions clearly improve the readers' experience and be ready and willing to upgrade the rest of the articles covered by the project accordingly. What good does a collaborative effort do when the collaboration amounts to clobbering editors who are trying to raise the bottom line? What are we, the Soviet apparatchiks or the Wikipedia editors?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  6. An editor has expressed concern about WP:STUBS being created for non-notable embassies. An example was Embassy of Russia in Damascus. It is likely that information on this building is going to be in Arabic, so I have approached editors who are either Syrian and/or speak Arabic and asked them to look for information, etc. This comes back to a collaborative effort.
    Support, conditionally: I have no problems with stubs being created, as long as the author contributes to developing stubs as assidiously as he initiates them. Kransky (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    Support; same reasons.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  7. Concerns about having ambassadors, again, Ambassadors of Russia will be re-created in the future by myself (if someone doesn't beat me to it), except my vision is that it will include a list of current ambassadors, their diplomatic ranks, the date they were appointed, the date they presented credentials, and perhaps other information which ideas will come to the fore.
    Support: I will leave it to people who create articles on ambassadors to develop their own common styles between them. Kransky (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    Support. A very reasonable approach.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  8. Other articles, such as Diplomatic missions of Serbia, have followed this lead in tabulating and value adding information, so there is a desire on other articles for their contributors to also advance the article.
    Oppose: As I have said, people are interested in making changes to articles that interest them, but not to all the other articles. Kransky (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    Support. Once again, Wikipedia does not work on an "all or nothing" assumption. Only changes which introduce inconsistencies just for the sake of "being different" should be discouraged, but changes which are clearly improvements (as is the case here) should be embraced and adopted in the other areas of the project. Unwillingness (or lack of time) to improve the areas which at one point achieved consistency but can now be considerably improved (and not at the expense of sacrificing consistency!) is not a valid excuse to discourage any type of improvements suggested or introduced in future.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Any concerns or otherwise can be addressed here please. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 08:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for providing an opportunity to comment. Kransky (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
No problem Kransky, we are all here to create content in a collaborative setting, and to overcome any hurdles which may be placed in our way. Do not think that my comments are an attack on any editor or their contributions, they are merely my own opinions on how to better develop these lists in a way that will allow them to reach featured list status (I think that is the goal for all articles, albeit, some articles just aren't going to reach WP:FL or WP:FA status - an example is Moshonki, eh Ezhiki). So that you know Kransky, being upfront here, the guy with the long name is posting here as I have asked him for his opinion on the impasse which yourself and I have seemed to reach; I have not asked him for comment in his role as an admin (his opinion counts no more than yours or mine...well maybe just less than mine lol), but as what I regard as a prolific person within the WP:RUSSIA wikiproject and his long experience; it is not a gang up job or anything else, to be honest, surprisingly this is really the first time that he and I have really crossed paths, except for his nasty, nasty (joking) revert of my move of Anadyr (town) to Anadyr, and additionally due to his own efforts to create lists in which there are very few editors (in some case the only editor), and how he went about it, particularly in regards to getting a list to WP:FL. So just know that we can discuss this and hear each other's point of views, and weigh them up for what is in the best interests of the project overall. I will be responding to the above comments shortly. Cheers. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 22:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
One thing, I will be copying all of the above comments to the talk page of WP:FOR and I will post a message on all of the diplomatic missions articles talk pages to alert editors as to this discussion so that we can achieve a consensus from a wide range of people; because this will affect all diplomatic mission articles. Any objections to that Kransky? I am assuming that there won't be so I will be WP:BOLD and do so, and let us all please continue the discussion at the link which I will be posting in the very near future (few hours). I will ensure it is all copied in its entireity but will add info where needed to point out that this is due to this article. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 22:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:FOR on formatting and content of "List of diplomatic missions" article[edit]

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#Formatting_of_diplomatic_missions_lists - 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 00:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

What I think[edit]

I think the article is in preety good shape, there is no reason to change it back the way it was, it looks perfectly good. I suggest it stays the way it is now. Russian Luxembourger (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments - it is good that somebody is interested. However the style we have here is different form what other editors have used in almost all of the other 200 similar articles. There is no reason why this article should be different. Kransky (talk) 10:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Well it might be true on side but one could argue that this style is more advanced. To put in a different perspective, we shouldn't bring the article Barack Obama to the level of Mauricio Funes but vice versa. As I understand the committee ruled that the MoS is not binding and that the style should be done per the first major contributor and in this case the major contributor imposed this style in this article. Finally, I think we should concentrate on upgrading other diplomatic lists that are of lower quality rather than spending a lot of energy on this one where the only issue is it's design while content is sufficient.--Avala (talk) 13:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
If you mean it is more advanced because it has additional details like ambassadors, my response is that those details should go in specific articles (eg: Ambassadors of Russia). There are some aspects of Russavia's style which some might find suitable (the sortable table), and others which are not helpful (I think the photographs are too small).
Whereas you have helped edit several diplomatic missions by country articles, Russavia's interests are limited to the single one concerning Russia. When formatting issues were discussed on the talk page of the DMBC category page, he stated he was not interested in making changes to other articles. I therefore don't think it is practical nor fair to make changes to the 200 articles to fit Russavia's style. Kransky (talk) 09:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
But to my understanding the committee ruled that these articles do not have to be uniform in design, right?--Avala (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe you are referring to the text "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that the Manual of Style is not binding" (see here). I believe that the spirit of this ruling is that the MoS should not be used to prevent something that reflects common sense - I do not believe Russia's network needs to be treated differently to others in this regard, or that in this case we should ignore that the "overriding principle on Wikipedia is that style and formatting should be applied consistently within articles". Kransky (talk) 12:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I can't help regarding this as a very backwards approach. Should Russia's network be treated differently than others? Absolutely not. Does it mean we need to dumb down a good design solution in Russia-related articles to level the playing field? No, we should bring other articles to the level of this one! This conclusion is so obvious that I really can't understand why this matter keeps being dragged for months—just think how much work could have already been done!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:47, March 24, 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure how you come to the conclusion that the mainstream design is "dumbed down" and that Russavia's design is a worthwhile alternative. We do not include ambassadors because they already have their own articles (Ambassadors of the United States, Ambassador of New Zealand to Russia). I find it hard to believe cross-accreditations are notable enough for inclusion (WP:INDISCRIMINATE). Russavia has created scores of articles which just list who is the ambassador to or from Russia - if he has time he should enrichen these articles and talk more broadly about these bilateral relationships, rather than just create structures on his own volition with barren articles. Kransky (talk) 08:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
This design only includes the current ambassador, while the list you are referring to (supposedly) list the whole succession. This article and those list serve different purposes and I, speaking as a reader, would very much prefer to find the most basic ambassador information here rather than to have to dig around in other lists, which the old layout does not even provide links to. But once again, my opinion is just that of a reader; do with it what you must. Russavia's format may have some quirks that need fixing, but overall it is more functional than the old format, and, as the comments above attest, I am not the only person to think that.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:52, March 25, 2009 (UTC)
Main problem here is not really the style, but the content. This article is way too formal. What these Embassies actually do? How do they function? The articles must be interesting for a reader. For example, one could describe the relationships between "clean diplomats" and their "friends" from the "close" and the "far" headquarters. There are many personal memories about that, like Comrade J or Aquarium. Then it would be interesting to read.Biophys (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
"Interesting to read" is a laudable goal, but we are here to make formal and boring stuff available, too. We are, after all, working on an encyclopedia, not on a New York Times bestseller collection. I should probably also mention that is not an easy task to make a list interesting to read—lists are supposed to aggregate the information and to make it easily accessible by linking to the appropriate articles is a structured and well-organized way. At any rate, the point is moot—the problem here is really the style (content—not so much). When the list was using the old design, it wasn't exactly "interesting" either, but that's not at all what's being discussed here.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:45, March 25, 2009 (UTC)
I too agree. These are lists and they should be easy to read. Not everyone who accesses the artcles are wholy conscious about what embassies are or who the ambassadors are. I feel that they just want to know if a certain embassy or consulate is in a certain location. We need to make these articles easy to read and figure out, and consistency would be nice too. Aquintero (talk) 11:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Russavia's formatting[edit]

Happy 2010 Russavia and welcome back after your block.

I thought you were banned from editting Russia-related articles. If you have served your time then it is good you are back, but I hope this time around you can properly harness your eagerness and not jump the gun. It would be a shame if we lost you again.

Now, to business. We have no agreement whatsover on your edits. You can argue there is no consensus on mine either, but I would point out my format is used almost all the 180 odd DMBC articles. I notice that the contending camps were divided between those with an interest in all the DMBC articles, and those who have a narrow interest in the Russia article, and it seems unlikely we can reach an agreement.

Let me also remind you about what the Arbitration Committee states about MoS conflicts:

The Arbitration Committee has ruled that the Manual of Style is not binding, that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable. Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

The next step I understand is taking it to ArbComm, if you are wanting to pursue your edits. The ball is in your court. Kransky (talk) 09:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh boy, not again. Instead of blowing yet another ArbComm hearing out of this, can't we just put together a some kind of a discussion page, outlining the benefits and drawbacks of each approach, post a notice through CENT, and let the community decide which one, in their opinion, works best for these articles? Sure this would be more productive than squabbling? Maybe good ideas will be generated in the process even?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:53, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
I will leave it to Russavia to decide how he wishes to pursue this issue. I agree there are alternatives to ArbComm which could be explored Kransky (talk) 09:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)