Talk:List of diplomatic missions of the United States

Texas

It is mentioned that the Confederacy maintained a consular presence in Texas. This does not make sense as Texas was itself a part of the Confederacy. I shall thus delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.46.5 (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

United States diplomatic missions

Shouldn't we put this article under "United States", not "American", seeing as American encompasses the entirety of two continents, whereas this article relates to only one country on one of those continents. I know making the move will be a pain, but I think it will better express what the article is about. Clarkefreak ∞ 19:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

People commonly understand 'American' in the context of nationality as referring to the United States. Kransky 10:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless, there's something to be said for consistency. MrZaius^talk 20:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

See Cleanup MrZaius^talk 04:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Afghanistan's regional location was incorrectly listed

The country was listed as being in the Middle East, which it's actually situated in Southwest Asia. I fixed it. Shadowrun 23:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

For the other 160+ articles Afghanistan is considered to be in the Middle East. There is no definition of what countries are in the Middle East; if you feel strong about this, could you please modify all the other articles. Kransky 04:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there's a ton of these that look a little odd. For instance, Kyrgystan is listed as part of Europe. Do we have a source we can use to explain that in the LEAD, or should we go with a more conventional layout? MrZaius^talk 02:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

The current article suffers from image overload and consists mainly of lengthy lists that make poor use of whitespace. Would make a lot of sense to break into columned lists and sort images by continent, much like List of whisky brands is divided by nation. As part of that cleanup, we probably also ought to sort the images by continent. Any objections? MrZaius^talk 20:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Seeing none, made the proposed edit to Europe. Comments or concerns? MrZaius^talk 02:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Boldly made with the proposed edit throughout. Article was previously swimming in images, so much so that it was in violation of my reading of the WP:MoS and was slowing the rendering of the page considerably over slow Internet connections, I'd imagine. Also adjusted name to match usage throughout wiki. Cleanup complete. Only major question I have is this: Is it "Consulate-Generals" in the plural or "Consulates-General"? MrZaius^talk 04:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Got an informal answer on that last from Consul (representative). MrZaius^talk 04:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mr Zaius,

I notice you are new here. Firstly, before trying to redo a completely new standard, notice that we have been using the same style for 171 other articles. You might want to see what is being done before suggesting something new. And when you want to get a consensus from other users, try waiting perhaps a bit longer than four hours (as your postings at 20:13 22 July and 02:31 23 July suggest). I propose that the article is renamed back to American diplomatic missions and is reverted back to the last edit by Krokodyl on 19:33, 22 July 2007 Kransky 14:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC) (UTC)

Hello

Having seen the new 'Cleanup' on American diplomatic missions I agree with Kransky that it should be reverted back to the last edit by Krokodyl on 19:33, 22 July, 2007. Unless the new user tends to redo the other 171 other articles, I suggest that we keep it consistent. User:Aquintero82 09:19, 24 July, 2007

In no sense am I new here. That said, the style of this article was something of a mess. I understand your concerns about the move, and that should have been given more time, but, in my previous experience, positive changes like the stylistic changes this are normally welcomed - WP:BOLD et al. If all the other articles were formatted in the manner that this one was on 22 July, then they should probably be updated as well for readability's sake. The ultimate goal of this article, like any other list, should be reaching Featured List status, which would never have happened in the old format, with its ineffective use of whitespace and huge mess of images. Temporary consistency in a cat isn't nearly as important as moving towards compliance with Wikipedia:Featured_list_criteria. The image bloat of this page (which was restored by the addition of the gallery) and the former poor use of white space seem at odds with the criteria calling for a list to be "well-constructed." Also, I wouldn't mind helping with the other 171, but it'll obviously take some time - Gotta start somewhere and all that. MrZaius^talk 18:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC) PS: I've undone the move, but these articles are plainly lists. I haven't found any with considerable prose content outside of the lead. To introduce the word "list" into the name was a positive change, as was the change to the more clear country name rather than the denomyn, called for by at least one other editor above. There are several other articles in this cat that use the country name, such as the two Koreas and Chinas. As such, I must say that I am slightly offended by the tone of this conversation. Could have undone the apparently controversial move and called for it to be proposed again without invoking this tone.

MrZaius - I assumed you were new because I had not seen your name associated with any of these articles. This doesn't in any way mean your contributions should be devalued, or that styles should remain permanently in stone but it might help your case if you seek a consensus first from the other contributors who had made a body of work. So don't expect anything other than an "offensive" tone when you give existing contributors four hours in the middle of the night to respond to a totally new direction.

Saying that, there are indeed consistency issues that have arisen over the last twelve months and are outstanding, if minor ('Consulate General' vs 'Consulate-General' vs 'consulate general' etc.) or major (I lumped Kyrgyzstan with Europe as it is a member of the OSCE) . Or what denonym to use. In fact when I started I used "List of...", but dropped it after some articles attracted had a substantial amount of prose.

However there are many aspects of your new model I take issue with. It is easier to read one mission per line, listed hierarchically city-country-continent, than dumping cities after each other as you have. I fail to see what is annoying about the 'ineffective' use of whitespace - it is a list, designed to be easier to read, not a work of art (look at Lufthansa destinations, not too ugly to look at hey?). I also wonder about putting a gallery at the bottom of the page (I've seen criticism of the practice in other articles), as the photos are supposed to complement the information as they appear, and not appear as a collection at the bottom of the page.

MrZaius, I seek your concurrence with reverting the page back to what it was before. Then if you have good ideas for these articles, and are prepared to do the hard work making the changes, then tell us what you think Kransky 11:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

A couple of quick points - It was hardly a "totally new direction", it was a mere stylistic adjustment. The only substantive changes that I made to the actual content was to add two lines to the lead and pick a consistent way to write Consulate-General - Both of the ones you mentioned were previously in use in the article, and at least one (Vietnam) was falsely referred to as an embassy in a piped link. I and a handful of anons I've shown the article to agree that the layout is superior when compacted and not leaving the huge gaps between the text and graphical content/not requiring the user to scroll through 10 pages of content (according to my print preview) to get a feel for the text. The use of columns and tables is quite common, and the lack thereof and inneffective use of whitespace is not at all an uncommon complaint - Even if a list isn't a "work of art", it should still have an effective, professional layout. The consistency issues that you bring up about consistency of language does seem important to me, but much more so than stylistic consistency, especially if this were merely the start of a rewrite for the entire cat. Check out the variance in Category:Software comparisons et al. Again, the ultimate goal should be reaching FL status, not stylistic consistency with its peers, although I should point out once more that I am perfectly willing to help populate these changes throughout the rest of the cat.

On a related note, you said that the photos are supposed to "complement the information as they appear", but in this case some 25 photos were all just dumped in the lead. The first handful were sorted alphabetically, and the rest added willy-nilly to the tail of the list, resulting, among other things, in bunched edit links and a complete lack of cohesion with the text. They weren't even sorted by continent, so they were hardly complementing the associated prose. If anything, they are far closer to the goal you state now, as I had taken roughly half of them and placed them in the associated sections and used as many as physically possible without bunched edit links and without bleeding over into other continents at a wide-screen resolution, which is somewhat less forgiving than a standard 4:3. On the gallery at the bottom of the page, you will note that that was introduced by Krokydyl, apparently trying to preserve the 13 images that didn't fit and introducing one other that, I must say, was a very good image for the LEAD. I don't agree that the others, located in the gallery, are important enough to warrant pushing the page size up as high as it is - The text is some 73K when rendered as HTML, which is normal enough, but the total page inclusive of pictures, is over 638524 according to what I got from a wget -E -H -k -K -p http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_diplomatic_missions - That's big enough that, over a dialup connection, this page would currently take some 2 minutes and 30 seconds to download, assuming a connection rate very near 56kbps. It is not unreasonable to expect that that would be halved by striking the gallery, if there's any other interest in doing so. MrZaius^talk 12:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC) PS: I've also corrected for a number of places where unwarranted capitalization of the word embassy was used in captions and made a number of other minor factual and MoS-minded grammatical fixes that would be undone by the suggested revert.

There is a practical use to listing one mission per line - easier to count and organise. I also doubt that it is Wikipedia practice to dump pics as a gallery at the bottom of the page like what Krokydyl did. One problem arises is that if we have more pics than states it is harder to fit pics in (especially if they are sorted by continent - greater risk that they may not fit). Why not add the pics in on the right margin as they were before - making them smaller as they are should make them load quicker.

Otherwise I agree that there have been inconsistencies (embassy vs Embassy which is worth worrying about, and the order of pictures which perhaps is more trivial).

I will also fix the text in the main body. The sentence The United States no longer maintains embassies in Cuba and Iran, although it does maintain "Interests Sections" in Iran and Cuba sounds clumsy. Several facts mentioned are not as uniquely applicable to the US, and thus are not worth including (such as the accreditation of the US Ambassador to Andorra). aNote also the US is served by a full Ambassador in Hanoi, not a Consul. Kransky 13:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

My main thought with the lead was to try to summarize some of the notes from the Ambassadors list, but, as such, they are somewhat redundant. On converting the pics from the gallery to thumbnails, that would prevent sorting, as the Europe section has far, far too many pics here. With the current layout, we can't have any more than we do as thumbnails, as stated above. 20+ pics on a list is really just too many pics. See my comment above about total size. The bulk of them just simply aren't necessary, and represent similar architectural styles. I'd say we're better off with sorted images and axing half of 'em. MrZaius^talk 13:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Can see merit in limiting number of pics - you choose which ones are noteworthy or particuarly attractive. Can you revert to one mission per line please. Kransky 16:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd really like to get a third opinion on that before reverting - I still feel the columned layout is considerably more functional, makes more effective use of whitespace, etc. The only other editor that has weighed in on the issue seemed primarily concerned with consistency across the cat and didn't seem to express any thoughts about the new layout being a positive or negative change if populated throughout the cat. MrZaius^talk 16:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC) PS: Just to be perfectly clear, I'm willing to take on a goodly chunk of the leg work, updating the layout of the other related pages as well.

Hello

I believe the new layout is too clustered. If I were a to see the page for the first time I'd think that it was sort of confusing. Also, the idea of pictures on the side do give an idea of what an American Embassy looks like in a certain country in order to give the reader a sence of what to expect if ever they came to see that certain building. I also see some of the information to be misleading. For example: the US has 4 consulates-general in Mexico, and 5 consulates. There are also 6 consulates-general in Canada and one consulate in Winnipeg, and so on... User:Aquintero82 22:04, 28 July, 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by your comment about "misleading" information. No substantive changes were made. To respond to your comment about the images, no, that is not the purpose of the photos - This is not an advertisement for the State department. They are there to simply illustrate the article, nothing more. To add a completely exhaustive image gallery would render the page completely unusable over a slow connection. MrZaius^talk 14:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

MrZaius (I thought it was DrZaius?): how does putting cities altogether make the list more 'functional'? one city-one row makes it easier to read, count, compare and order entries. Whatever advantage your style has would have to be weighed against the effort required for us to make the change to 171 articles. 'Effective use of whitespace?' Not sure what aethetic advantage this will bring if the list of missions are all clustered together. Sorry, not convinced. Kransky 08:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It actually was DrZaius up until probably ~2001, but I was getting a lot of name collisions. I still disagree that the page is more useful or easier to read without the columns, but seeing no support for the current layout, I will not object if you change it back. Note that again straight-up revert would be a mistake as there were a handful of errors that would be restored - The page is more correct now than it was when I began the 3-4 hour process to tidy things up. MrZaius^talk 14:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for being agreeable. I will change it back manually, as opposed to a total revert, to include worthwhile changes you made. Kransky 14:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Links to Articles on Embassies

As the number of articles on individual US diplomatic missions grows, perhaps a link could be made in the body to the appropriate article rather than going to the ==See Also== section to look is an article exists? Maybe something like:

• France
  • Paris (Embassy) (Article)

Mikebar 16:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Virtual Presence Posts

It might be helpful if the list included US Virtual Presence Posts as listed in article Office of eDiplomacy. WHile we're at it, it might be helpful to flag the posts that have been designated American Presence Posts also. Mikebar 16:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if VPPs should make the cut. They really are nothing more than fancy web pages - no office, no phones, no dedicated email or staff (even sattelite in an other area). Having a web page that says a city's name is not the same as an actual staffer. Bevinbell 03:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No. We don't include honorary consulates, which are a more substantial level of representation than websites. Kransky (talk) 06:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Lingayen Phillipines

No reference on the Department of State website - please provide reference or links will be reverted. Mikebar (talk) 06:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Tonga

No mention on http://suva.usembassy.gov/ or on internal documents - need a source. Mikebar (talk) 07:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• [www.radioaustralia.net.au/news/stories/200805/s2247365.htm] Kransky (talk) 08:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

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

There is now a discussion at WP:FOR on the formatting and content of "List of diplomatic missions" articles. As this discussion ostensibly could affect this article, editors are encouraged to provide their opinions on the WP:FOR at this link - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_International_relations#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} 00:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Strange Regional Placements

Ok, so there are several nations placed under regions headings that they probably shouldn't be. The ones that I have noticed, where they currently are, and where I think they should be: Kazakhstan, currently in Europe, should be in Asia; Kyrgyzstan, currently in Europe, should be in Asia; Tajikistan, currently in Europe, should be in Asia; Turkmenistan, currently in Europe, should be in Asia; and Turkey, currently in Middle East, (debatably) should be in Europe. Also, I don't understand why a Middle East section is necessary in this list since all the countries that are included in the Middle East section of this list are Asian countries (except for Turkey). I guess the real question is whether the regions are divided geographically or politically? It seems like the list is made with different standards for some countries. DruidODurham (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Druid - yes it is an issue that has arisen, with some people wanting certain counties in certain continents (and others not wanting the change). People seem happy to use as a guide the United Nations geoscheme which provides some deliniation. If you want to improve articles, you could remove the Middle East continent and move its contents to Asia. Kransky (talk) 12:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

North America

Hi, I have reverted the edits made to break North America into North and Central/Caribbean. I think you have a good idea, but the place to have that discussion is North_america#Countries_and_territories not here. If you can reach consensus there, maybe you can come back here and make the change? Bevinbell (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this is not a subject of discussion: There are only 3 countries in North America. Honduras is not in North America. Before reverting, why not consult with geography texts?. It is not my intention to have a "reverting match" with you, so kindly fix it as I did, or let it be a loss for Wikipedia --Healkids (talk) 03:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, sorry you feel that way - the change needs to be made at North_america#Countries_and_territories and then come back when you have some consensus. I am not sure that your statement of fact is indeed a consensus opinion, no matter how firmly held your beliefs. even Central_America firmly states that the Central American geographic region is part of the North American continent. Bevinbell (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, http://www.worldatlas.com/cntycont.htm states that Honduras is in North America, and that Central American countries are part of the North American continent. National Geographic http://travel.nationalgeographic.com/places/continents/continent_northamerica.html states the same. Encarta http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761562468/North_America.html states its North America too. This article Geography_of_North_America as a very good description of the continent and numerous academic cites. Bevinbell (talk) 03:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

"Republic of China" (Taiwan)

(1) When did the United States renew its diplomatic relations with the Republic of China? Did the United States not break off its diplomatic relations with the Republic of China in 1979 when it switched its recognition to the People's Republic of China?

Of course, I know the answers to the above questions and the United States has never resumed diplomatic relations (a pre-requisite for a diplomatic mission). The inclusion of the Republic of China on the list is no doubt politically motivated propaganda....I will remove it. Before reverting my change, please provide a reliable source to show the US has a diplomatic mission to the Republic of China.

For my part, there are many good sources I could use to show that the United States does not have a diplomatic mission to the Republic of China and here is one, an extract from the CIA World Factbook (re "Taiwan"):

Diplomatic representation from the US: none; commercial and cultural relations with the people on Taiwan are maintained through an unofficial instrumentality, the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT), a private nonprofit corporation that performs citizen and consular services similar to those at diplomatic posts

See http://www.ait.org.tw/en/about_ait/agreements/ - "Pursuant to section 6 of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) (P.L. 96-8, 93 Stat. 14, 22 U.S.C. 3305) and Executive Order 13014, 61 F.R. 42963, programs, transactions, and other relations carried out by the President or any agency of the United States Government with respect to Taiwan are generally conducted and carried out by or through the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT). Similarly, U.S. agreements or transactions relative to Taiwan are generally entered into, performed, and enforced by or through AIT."

Also, see http://www.ait.org.tw/en/visa/niv/ - they issue visas and note the email addresses - "visaniv-ait@state.gov" with the state.gov domain.

The institute is staffed by Department of State Foreign Service Officers and other members of the US government on assignment. See the various job listings like this one - http://www.ait.org.tw/en/employment/09-14%20RSO%20Guard.pdf - "Listed on the travel orders of a Foreign or Civil Service or uniformed service member permanently assigned to or stationed at a US Foreign Service post or establishment abroad with a USG agency that is under COM authority;"

Its an outpost of the Department of State, clearly not an embassy. See http://www.usembassy.gov/ - AIT is listed, with a footnote that states "*The U.S. maintains unofficial relations with the people on Taiwan through the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT), a private nonprofit corporation, which performs citizen and consular services similar to those at diplomatic posts."

http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/American-Institute-in-Taiwan names it as a de-facto embassy. Bevinbell (talk) 02:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Unofficial relations are NOT diplonatic relations. None of your sources above address that basic fact. Why are you insisting on a lie being included in the list? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 07:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is something relevant to read on the topic:

"Joint Communique of the USA and the People's Republic of China on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations, 1979

Published January 1, 1979[1]

Following the growth of ties between China and the U.S. in 1978, the two countries established full diplomatic relations effective January 1, 1979. The U.S. repeated its approval of the People’s Republic of China as the sole government of the country and that Taiwan was part of China.

The United States of America and the People's Republic of China have agreed to recognize each other and to establish diplomatic relations as of January 1, 1979.

The United States of America recognizes the Government of the People's Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China. Within this context, the people of the United States will maintain cultural, commercial, and other unofficial relations with the people of Taiwan.

The United States of America and the People's Republic of China reaffirm the principles agreed on by the two sides in the Shanghai Communique and emphasize once again that:

Both wish to reduce the danger of international military conflict.

Neither should seek hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region or in any other region of the world and each is opposed to efforts by any other country or group of countries to establish such hegemony.

Neither is prepared to negotiate on behalf of any third party or to enter into agreements or understandings with the other directed at other states.

The Government of the United States of America acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China.

Both believe that normalization of Sino-American relations is not only in the interest of the Chinese and American peoples but also contributes to the cause of peace in Asia and the world.

The United States of America and the People's Republic of China will exchange Ambassadors and establish Embassies on March 1, 1979."Regards. Redking7 (talk) 23:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is some further reading, from the Council on Foreign Affairs' website, that is relevant:

"In 1979, the United States reestablished relations with Beijing and signed a joint communiqué that reasserted the One China policy. According to it, "the Government of the United States of America acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China." At that time, President Jimmy Carter terminated diplomatic relations with the ROC government in Taiwan."[2]. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 23:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Lets keep it good faith - you certainly have strong feelings about taiwan, but you should refrain from calling something a lie - you seem to be missing the bigger picture. Get some consensus (which you currently do not have) and then come back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bevinbell (talk • contribs) 00:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I act in good faith. I do have strong feelings about the RoC (Taiwan) entry - It is such a well know fact that the US does not have diplomatic relations with the RoC that to include RoC in the list makes the list a joke. I definitely do not have a consensus but I have SOURCES which you are happy to ignore. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 11:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Dubronik

The wikipedia page for Dubrovnik says that the then Republic was the first nation to recognise the independence of the United States —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.135.162 (talk) 13:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Embassy in Nigeria

http://oig.state.gov/documents/organization/135247.pdf says that the embassy moved from Lagos to Abuja in 2000 WhisperToMe (talk) 06:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Cyprus, Georgia, and Armenia

Cyprus is NOT part of Asia nor the Middle East. It is a part of Europe and the European Union. With a Greek-Cypriot population of 80%, majority Greek Orothox religion and Greek language there is NOTHING Middle Eastern about this island nation. Please refrain from placing it in Middle East category as it is NOT Middle Eastern. Same goes for Georgia and Armenia. Both are technically part of Europe as they lie north of the Caucus Mountain range. Anything south is considered part of Asia. Georgia is a possible candidate for EU Membership and Armenia has expressed interest in joing the organization within the next decade. Please refrain from adding these two former Soviet Republics with overall Christian populations to the Middle East. If you have something to discuss, do so on this page.

With regards to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, no nation on earth recognizes that country except Turkey. Turkey realizes that it's recognition of this country will affect its chances of joining the European Union. --XLR8TION (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

As to Armenia, sorry, it lies south of the Caucasus watershed, entirely in Asia. The Greater Caucasus range is considered to be the line dividing Europe from Asia in that part of the world (see Greater Caucasus and Boundaries between continents), and this makes up basically the southern frontier of Russia with Georgia and Azerbaijan (though very small bits of territory of both Azerbaijan and Georgia extend north of that line into Europe, no part of Armenia, which does not share a border with Russia, does this). Also see the Wikipedia page Europe#Definition (see the map) and List of transcontinental countries. This issue keeps coming up in various places. Armenia is a wonderful country, filled with wonderful people with a deep and wonderful culture. Modern Armenia is not, however, even in small part, in Europe. The US Embassy in Armenia should be shown as being in Asia. (It’s no shame to be in Asia, folks.) As to Georgia, a tiny de jure part lies in Europe, but most of it lies south of the Greater Caucasus, in Asia. As to Cyprus, it’s an island. I don't know how one should classify it. Need it be tagged to a continent? Xenophonix (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Because the Caucasus countries are part of the Council of Europe, I think that they should be included in Europe. Same for Turkey. Europe is merely the northwestern part of the Eurasian tectonic plate and landmass. Asia is the portion of the Eurasian landmass (covering several tectonic plates) that is not Europe. In the Middle Ages these countries were undoubtedly considered Asia, now they're considered European. Turkey, Georgia, and Armenia have strong ties with traditional Europe and the West, though Armenian is technically entirely in western "Asia." Azerbaijan is closely tied with Europe, but it has strong ties with Turkey, Georgia, and Russia and is partially north of the Caucasus. All of these areas are geographically contiguous.

Cyprus, I believe lies between the Anatolian and African plates, and was traditionally considered part of Asia, but like you said it's an island, and more importantly is part of the European Union. So Cyprus should definitely be included in Europe. Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey probably should too, and the strength of their claims goes in reverse alphabetical order, but all are close enough that they should be treated as a unit. Since I don't feel very strongly about this I'm not going to revert your edits nor move Turkey (which seems to have been in there for awhile). I am going to move Cyprus back to Europe though, since I can't imagine anybody nowadays would look for it in Asia. —Quintucket (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of diplomatic missions of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070612181705/http://thehague.usembassy.gov/speeches_editorials.html to http://thehague.usembassy.gov/speeches_editorials.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Taiwan

There has been a slow-motion edit war with several people changing Taiwan and Taiwan Area. Which of these is actually correct? Natureium (talk) 14:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of diplomatic missions of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110806125722/http://www.masshist.org/adams/timeline.cfm to http://www.masshist.org/adams/timeline.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160429015505/http://cyprus.usembassy.gov/ to http://cyprus.usembassy.gov/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Mission To Jerusalem

There is still a Consulate General in Jerusalem exciting as a separate mission from the mission to Israel. Is should be re-added (I tried to re-add it but my edit was reverted) Bens (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

References

US embassy article naming scheme

It seems that titles for US Embassies refer to the city that they are located. As there aren't multiple embassies in a country we should refer to it as the embassy to the country rather than the city. Wouldn't it make more sense to have the title of the article refer to the country that the embassy is located?

Current Title Embassy of the United States, Rome

Proposed Title Embassy of the United States to Italy

Note, Rome is just an example. I wanted to bring this talk to an article that listed most of the missions. Consulates would still refer to the city name.

Embassyupdate (talk) 21:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: @Embassyupdate no, i think that it is very much clear an nice as to how the embassy pages should be named. The page should be titled like other diplomatic missions, where the host country's CAPITAL is used instead of saying "in the/in [host country]" Utkarsh555 (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Please organise.

See: it is very tedious for anyone to just scroll through the long pages. Like almost every diplomatic missions of <country>, this article should be having a tabulated form. Please, take note of this. List of diplomatic missions of India is one such example. Utkarsh555 (talk) 05:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Solomon Islands

Embassy Honiara is operational [3] - ILBobby (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

U.S. Embassy Branch Office in Tel Aviv.

Why is it not included under the entry of Israel? Steveonsi (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)