Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 103: Line 103:
*'''It should be an article-by-article decision.''' In some cases (see at the ''bottom'' of page [[Anglosphere]]), such comparisons seem to be just fine. In other cases (like [[Russia–Ukraine relations]]), the comparison is interesting and useful, but I would rather keep them as separate standalone list pages, with linking from other pages like "relations" and Russo-Ukrainian war. In other cases they better be removed. And so on. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 22:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
*'''It should be an article-by-article decision.''' In some cases (see at the ''bottom'' of page [[Anglosphere]]), such comparisons seem to be just fine. In other cases (like [[Russia–Ukraine relations]]), the comparison is interesting and useful, but I would rather keep them as separate standalone list pages, with linking from other pages like "relations" and Russo-Ukrainian war. In other cases they better be removed. And so on. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 22:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
*'''Remove as a general rule'''. The reader is just one click away from finding this info in country articles or two clicks away from lists of countries by any conceivable attribute. The data are often not updated regularly thus misleading the reader. [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]]<sub>[[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]]</sub> 08:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
*'''Remove as a general rule'''. The reader is just one click away from finding this info in country articles or two clicks away from lists of countries by any conceivable attribute. The data are often not updated regularly thus misleading the reader. [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]]<sub>[[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]]</sub> 08:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
*It is possible that in individual cases this information can be useful, but as a general rule, no--and I say this because I would like for us to have it as a general rule. Too many articles suffer from this typically overlinked and overfetishized material which often accretes--material with emblems and flags and overlinking, with randomly picked data, and often in the most disruptive and conspicuous of places, such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Post-Soviet_states&diff=prev&oldid=1161422866 in this article]. I'll add that in many of the articles, it was the work of an LTA operating a variety of IPs from Turkey. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 16:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)


== When is international migration defining ==
== When is international migration defining ==

Revision as of 16:17, 22 June 2023

WikiProject iconInternational relations Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page 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, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

For quality reviews in Transnational authoritarianism

Sorry for leaving the messages for discuss issues on Transnational authoritarianism about orginal reaserch problem,as the local memmber suggest it should geting WIKIPROJECT involved

The party in the case is well known in zhwiki communities for long of violatimg rules and acting like Wolf warrior,that keep on ideological battles and conflicts for no end with anyone against it. Those matters could be comfirmed by other memmbers in zhwiki communities if they could well defend the complicated annoying and unwanted contacts, attacks, intimidation from this user.

I would be ok for local professional memmbers to assist the topics,but as I have reported locally,the pattern of the user could make anyone involing the processes suffer,I suggest the parties of communties should holding enough strong mental powers for the matters. Longway22 (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Preparatory Committee for an Arms Trade Treaty#Requested move 6 May 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Preparatory Committee for an Arms Trade Treaty#Requested move 6 May 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. EggRoll97 (talk) 05:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Feedback and Review requried: UK-Pakistan Judicial Protocol on Children Matters (2003)

Hi there - an article that I created UK-Pakistan Judicial Protocol on Children Matters (2003) is in need of a feedback and review. If anyone is interested in this topic area I would greatly appreciate some more eyes on this. 147.188.245.156 (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc on Country Comparison charts/tables

Should we remove or keep country comparison charts/tables on bilateral relations articles?

An example being Russia–United States relations, which is the first section of the article after the lead. I am rather neutral on this issue, but I can see arguments for keeping and removing. While there is information that compares and contrasts information between both nations, it seems like it belongs more in like a world fact book and much of the information on there doesn't really seem to fit the overall topic of bilateral relations. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging LibStar and Lollipoplollipoplollipop who commented from a previous short discussion last year. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't support country comparisons because I don't see how they are meaningful in terms of bilateral relations. One country being bigger in area than the other doesn't add value, or other aspects such as currency used or who the leader is. I support Wikicleanerman's statement seems like it belongs more in like a world fact book and much of the information on there doesn't really seem to fit the overall topic of bilateral relations.. LibStar (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support removing them. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 14:48, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, these should be removed. They're a collection of randomly accrued stats. There are cases where country comparisons are useful, and these are when some comparison is commented upon by a few reliable sources that note its impact on some aspect of bilateral relations. However, these cases should produce information that is limited and specific, as well as in context. (Looking at the specific example of Russia–United States relations, they also clearly promote WP:OR. The "Economic alliance" and "Military alliance" rows are nonsense.) CMD (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be an article-by-article decision. Summoned by bot. In some cases, the information is fascinating. While I wouldn't put the table as high in the article as it is, the table in Russia–United States relations is very interesting because the relative military might of these two powers is a major focus of international relations in the last year. If you had the same table with the same rows in, say, an article on U.S.-Haiti relations, well, that would be weird. At a minimum, it is very hard to support an RfC saying we should delete {thing} from {set of articles} without seeing more than one example in support of the assertion that these are bad and without knowing how many things are we talking about here. Chris vLS (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's three from France related articles, France–Germany relations, France–Spain relations, France–Russia relations. You have pretty much the same thing as the Russia-U.S. article. Are you saying that it should be kept on more important bilateral relations articles? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. I see little relevance to include comparisons. Without additional context and explanation, it's violating WP:NOTSTATS. SWinxy (talk) 23:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill it. Kill it with fire.
Let's get rid of it, once and for all. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 04:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Germanic-speaking world, Romance-speaking world, Iberophone and Finno-Ugric countries are four other random mostly WP:UNSOURCED "comparison" data dumps. These four are so egregious that I am going to nominate them for deletion right now, because language family has been repeatedly found to be WP:NONDEFINING for countries, and Comparison of the Turkic states serves as a compelling precedent.
Ibero-America need not be deleted immediately, but Ibero-America#Countries and population in the Americas is yet another random WP:UNSOURCED "comparison" data dump.
Hispanic America shouldn't be deleted, but it has no fewer than 4 arguably random partly WP:UNSOURCED "comparison" data dumps, not all of which may have added value.
Latin America obviously shouldn't be deleted, but we may well question the added value of the tables in Latin America#Subregions and countries, Latin America#Standard of living, Latin America#Largest cities, Latin America#Religion, Latin America#Size, Latin America#Tourism. Some of these seem excessively detailed and large for a general article, and may simply be moved to a thematic subpage (like, Latin America#Size to Latin American economy). Latin America#World Heritage Sites seems some kind of weird top-10 "competition" between who has the most heritage sites by comparison (through WP:SYNTH). Why should readers care? They are probably wondering which ones there are in Latin America as a whole. This section should probably be replaced by just links to List of World Heritage Sites in South America, List of World Heritage Sites in the Caribbean, List of World Heritage Sites in Central America, and List of World Heritage Sites in Mexico. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Germanic-speaking world. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with improved guidelines – assuming there are 195 countries, that means a potential ~18,000 articles (195*194)/2) which is presently beyond our capacity to rigorously maintain and keep cruft/OR free. That said, the structured naming would also make it easier to monitor such articles (okay along with tracking categories), as well as for readers interested in this very notable/reasonable topic to expect in a Wikipedia and this amount of articles don't exist either. What we should NOT standardize, is the presumed type of content covered. Sometimes military is covered in secondary sources, sometimes trade/diplomatic relations etc... and just because US/Russia are two super powers, doesn't make two smaller countries non-notable. Instead of debating whether to delete/rescue articles, let's focus on improving the content, whether it's more rigorous sourcing, guidelines on what makes bad cruft (the military comparisons seems to be a common offender) etc..
    I misunderstood the RfC. Am neutral/leaning remove about comparison charts. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be an article-by-article decision. In some cases (see at the bottom of page Anglosphere), such comparisons seem to be just fine. In other cases (like Russia–Ukraine relations), the comparison is interesting and useful, but I would rather keep them as separate standalone list pages, with linking from other pages like "relations" and Russo-Ukrainian war. In other cases they better be removed. And so on. My very best wishes (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove as a general rule. The reader is just one click away from finding this info in country articles or two clicks away from lists of countries by any conceivable attribute. The data are often not updated regularly thus misleading the reader. Alaexis¿question? 08:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is possible that in individual cases this information can be useful, but as a general rule, no--and I say this because I would like for us to have it as a general rule. Too many articles suffer from this typically overlinked and overfetishized material which often accretes--material with emblems and flags and overlinking, with randomly picked data, and often in the most disruptive and conspicuous of places, such as in this article. I'll add that in many of the articles, it was the work of an LTA operating a variety of IPs from Turkey. Drmies (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When is international migration defining

when is international migration defining? I have some theories here. My starting po8nts are I think that unless it is a clear move from x to y, it is better to call someone say a British emigrant and an immigrant to Greece, if they lived a year or more in Switzerland and Romania in the interim, than to try to put them in a British emigrant to Greece Category when the middle is fuzzy. I am not sure exactly how to determine when the middle becomes defining and when they are an expat and when an immigrant. If they lived in Switzerland 20 years and wrote 3 or their 7 published books during that time clearly, but most cases are less clear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_International_relations&oldid=1161423265"