text:
Talk:Middle East

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. – (WT-en) 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 – (WT-en) cacahuate  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. (WT-en) Pashley 03:36, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

 * Dear (WT-en) 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 http://www.ozturkler.com/data_english/0001/0001_01_02.htm and United region page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_and_Others_Group) or official web(http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/ece.pdf) or(http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/english/) thanx for ure understanding and for ure effort. by :(WT-en) 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 Project: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. (WT-en) 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? – (WT-en) 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. - (WT-en) 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.  --(WT-en) 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.... – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 03:32, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

dear User talk:Peterfitzgerald, I think u dont know anythink about Political geography why We called Europe(belong west asia) and Mid-east(belong west asia),Thise regions are political regions,so All Arapic counries İn Mid-east even North africa mid east is a region only,yes russia is totaly European Ok? Turkey,Cyprus(greek and Turkish part) too accordingly Europe is Historical and Political region,Mid-east too,All Arabian countries is in mid-east look at the arapic union(mid-east union),,,I removed Turkey again If u'll be add to Turkey U must add to Cyprus and Greece too Because If Turkey in mid-east cypruss too and Half of agean islans(greece) Too,Its Totaly unfair,,,Sure Russia is european U must remove To Russia in asian countries list because Russia isnt Asian like Turkey and Cyprus(greek and Turkish part)  AegeanFighter

Turkey and Cyprus
There have been some efforts lately to add Cyprus to this list and to remove Turkey. The current consensus is that Turkey straddles the line between what is European and what is Middle Eastern, while Cyprus is European. While anyone is encouraged to edit articles, it takes a long time to come to an agreement about what countries should be placed in each region, and once that agreement is reached we prefer that it not be changed without further discussion. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:54, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

 * Turkey has been removed from the country list & Istanbul from the cities list. I'd say this was a mistake; they are a vital part of this region. This has been extensively discussed before. Talk:Turkey
 * The change seems to have been made without discussion, let alone consensus. I would revert it without hesitation, but I do not know how to change the map and do not want to change text without that.
 * Could someone who knows maps please fix this? (WT-en) Pashley 12:57, 24 December 2010 (EST)

 * Removal of Turkey was done here. I'm not sure if there was a specific discussion that led to that, but Talk:Europe/Hierarchy has numerous references to incorporating Turkey into a European region.  Since this hierarchy has been in place for at least a year I would think that some discussion & consensus is needed before making any modification. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:05, 24 December 2010 (EST)

 * Of course Turkey is a European country, but it is also very much part of the Middle East. It should certainly be re-inserted here. See Talk:Turkey for reasons. (WT-en) Pashley 03:33, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

 * Oops. I was wondering "who's the prick making that political edit"--and it turns out it was me!  I fully support restoring Turkey to the list, and it should be shaded in both on the M.E. map here and the general Asia map. There is no getting around the fact that it is both European and Asian, in all senses of both words.  --(WT-en) Peter Talk 13:46, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

It was totally a mistake that such a region, Middle East, exists. It is not even a continent. "Middle East" is artificial. So while adding Cyprus, which is classified as in Asia geographically, to Europe, why do you classify Turkey as in Middle East? Turkey has agreements with European Countries, such as UEFA, European Council, so many other associations. So simply remove Turkey from Middle East map, while it is an official candidate of European Union. This should be considered to classify Turkey where it should actually be placed. --(WT-en) Nitrium Talk 00:23, 11 December 2011 (EST)
 * This is not WikiGeopolitics, it's Wikivoyage, where the traveller comes first. ~Relevant information is included here for the benefit of people seeking travelling information. This is why this page exists, this is why Turkey is included here and should not be removed. 201.67.83.121 17:28, 10 December 2011 (EST)
 * But, it gives an political Message, MiddleEast is created to mention a region in political aspect. MiddleEast should not be used in terms of Travel. When you group Turkey to the MiddleEast, you give a rough message that Turkey is a country like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan, Egypt, which is totally false. Turkey implements secularism, democracy, Swiss model, and all European standards. Only because of having a Muslim majority in Turkey, you classify Turkey to be in such a region. Isn't this a prejuidice? If it is ok with talking in terms of Travel, please kindly put Cyprus, and Greece to the same region, which are close to the region --(WT-en) Nitrium Talk 00:40 11 December 2011 (EST)
 * It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with geography. You'll note that Turkey is included in the country lists on both Europe and Middle East.  That is the only fair way to describe the geographical situation -- and the political situation is not of particular importance to us, as a travel site.  (WT-en) LtPowers 22:25, 10 December 2011 (EST)

Can you kindly check Asian Region? Turkey is shaded and not included as Middle Eastern country... If you are supporting the idea of including TR here in ME, please unshade Turkey and include it in the Asian Map also, this gives more consistent message. --(WT-en) Nitrium Talk 00:53 11 December 2011 (EST)

Yes is there valid explanation for my previous question or request.--(WT-en) Nitrium 15:26, 28 December 2011 (EST)

 * It looks like the map of Asia has been fixed to include Turkey. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:50, 29 December 2011 (EST)

Palestinian Territories
Why not label the territories of Gaza Strip and the West Bank? It seems rather confusing to leave them blank... —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 125.82.22.111 (talk • contribs)

 * Done – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 13:39, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

Adding Isfahan to main cities
IntroHi everyone I am very new on this site but find the depth and wealth of info fascinating. Me and my family travel quite a bit, however since I am only 14 I have recently started to get a real understanding of places I visit. I've been to Rome, Paris, Florence, Vienna, Prague, Budapest, Frankfurt, Munich, Nice, Venice, Vatican, all around USA and Canada, Tehran and a few more but they didn't have true meaning to me at that age. I love history/politics and culture and languages and such topics and really find this site great.

Actual For the cities I added Isfahan, because there was only 8 and 2 cities in Saudi Arabia are listed and both of them are pretty much off limits to non muslims (travel to Saudi is restriced heavily) —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Bnatsfan7 (talk • contribs)

 * Adding Isfahan is a fine idea. There's a Persian saying "Isphahan is half the world".
 * Why Riyadh? Yes, is is the capital, but if we must have Saudi city, Jeddah or even Damman are more travelled. I'd certainly put at least Isfahan and Tabriz above any Saudi city in importance to travellers.
 * Istanbul is not on the list. This is absurd. (WT-en) Pashley 12:28, 24 December 2010 (EST)

 * Despite about 77 out of every 100 world citizens are barred from entering, isn't Mecca an extremely important tourism (well, kinda) destination anyway? I'd be fine with switching Riyadh with Isfahan, though—Iran is the largest and the most populous country in the region, and if any country gets two cities listed, that should be Iran. As for Istanbul, although the city is a main entering point for trips into Middle East, most of the city (and the major sights, for that matter) lies on European mainland. I would call even its geographically Asian part hardly as "Middle Eastern", but as I lived there for seven years, I am perhaps biased on this, and I guess I should better leave that to have decided by travellers to the city. – (WT-en) Vidimian 10:41, 25 December 2010 (EST)

 * Istanbul should be on there, it's the largest city of the Middle East. Turkey should also be colored on the map. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 15:37, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

Turkey and Arabic
"Arabic is the primary language of the region, and the main language in all Middle Eastern countries except Iran (where Persian predominates), Turkey (Turkish) and Israel (Hebrew). Even in those countries, Arabic is fairly common as a second language;"

This is a false expression for Turkey. In Turkey, Turkish is primary language, and in Turkey, Arabic is not faily common as a second language. This statement should be corrected. Even though the worshipping language is in Arabic, most of the people do not understand or speak Arabic. --(WT-en) Nitrium Talk 16:50 11 December 2011 (EST)

 * Good point, and for that matter while Iran has an Arabic-speaking minority in some regions and Arabic is used in the religion, I doubt it is widespread as a second language there.
 * Is it enough to change "fairly common" to "sometimes spoken"? Or do we need some more radical rewrite? (WT-en) Pashley 19:50, 11 December 2011 (EST)

Grammatical and Punctuation-Related Conventions
I noticed that some bullet lists in this article used periods at the end of each item, some didn't, and some used periods for some items and not others. My reflex is to put periods after each item whenever the list uses sentence-like explanations, which is what I've done, but I don't really feel strongly one way or another as long as it's consistant, and I don't know if there's already some style guide that recommends for or against this.

Also thought it would be good to have a place to talk about all things gramatical, so feel free to post you thoughts here, I suppose :D

LeptonMadness (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

 * There is indeed: One-liner listings. While that is the manual, it's probably safe to say that it hasn't been followed everywhere—I've been an admin for some 6 years and have penned about a dozen star articles, but without having looked at that policy page, I thought they did require periods! --Peter Talk 00:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

 * I think we decided against periods some years ago to discourage other editors to add more sentences. Globe-trotter (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Turkey again
Saqib, in this edit you removed Turkey and Istanbul from the article. I must say I don't agree. As you can see on this Talk page it has been discussed earlier whether to keep Turkey here as well and the decision has been to keep it. Yes, Turkey is arranged under Europe in the hierarchy, but I've understood that the official border between Europe and Asia is the Bosphorus, and thus a part - actually the larger part is located in Asia. The same goes for Russia - it's arranged under Europe it has its own entry in the Asia article too because most of it is in Asia. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't bothered to look at this talk page. I've reverted my edit. --Saqib (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't agree with Turkey's inclusion in the "Middle East" - but if it is to remain there, we should be consistent and not also include it as a "Go next" destination. --W. Frankemailtalk 00:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Cities
We're a travel guide. Why are 2 or 3 of the top cities we are recommending, dangerous or impossible to travel to? We're not a paper guide. There is nothing stopping us featuring places that are not dangerous, and making updates again when stability returns. --Inas (talk) 22:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * They're not recommendations; they're shortcuts for cities that people may be looking for. Powers (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Powers. We'd have to delist Baghdad, too. These are significant cities. Should we also remove the country of Afghanistan from the Central Asia region? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That comparison isn't right. We feature cities in our 7-9 lists for a balance of reasons.  I've seen number of reasons given for our choices in different regions, including how many people visit them, and how prominent they are as visitor destinations.  If people are searching for Baghdad for their holidays, I'd be surprised, but the search is still there.  Sometimes I seem to think we pride ourselves on the quirky and absurd. Lets face it, in the travel world, Baghdad isn't a "significant" city right now. I would have thought featuring cities people can actually visit would have been right in line with the travellers interest.  We dedicate a small amount of space to these featured cities to waste it on non-destinations.  --Inas (talk) 22:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What cities would you propose to replace Damascus and Baghdad with? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, if you want to eliminate all listings in dangerous countries, you also would have to replace Shibam, Samarra and Palmyra from "Other destinations." Is this still sounding like a good plan to you? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Some of us seem to be forgetting that Wikivoyage is not just for leisure travelers. A lot of these places that are dangerous to tourists are also crawling with government contractors, aid workers, NGO employees, etc. – I'm thinking particularly of Baghdad, though there are surely others – and we aim to be of service to them too. Let's not take such a narrow view of what the scope of our site is. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Inas, are you also in favour of removing Karachi from South_Asia? Karachi is regarded as world's most dangerous mega-city by a US magazine but still when it comes about South Asia. Karachi is definitely a place shouldn't be missed to visited. --Saqib (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would just agree that the city list should be about the most notable cities in a region. If they are dangerous then the appropriate warnings should be added to the country and city article.
 * I lived in Medellin when it used to be one of the world's most dangerous cities. Sure, 'casual tourism' wasn't exactly encouraged at the time but travelers who were aware of the risks and took basic precautions were unlikely to encounter trouble. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * @Saqib if it is "definitely a place that shouldn't be missed", then of course include it. There is 'danger' that can be managed, and danger that is no-go.  --Inas (talk) 11:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Colour me confused.
 * The countries list now includes Egypt, though I don't think it did when I last looked. Despite that, neither Cairo nor Alexandria is on the cities list; I'd rate both ahead of Amman.
 * As for Damascus & Baghdad, I'd say keep them. They are among the world's great cities, let alone the region. Pashley (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, no doubt about Cairo and Alexandria. So you'd subtract Amman. But which other cities would you subtract, if not one of Damascus or Baghdad? I think I'd say, under those circumstances, Damascus goes. The problem I foresee, though, is that whenever Egypt flares up, are we going to play another round of round robin with the cities? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

 * Keeping the list to a reasonable number and/or within our policy limit is a hard problem for this region and many others. See for example Talk:India and other discussions on that page.
 * There are no others that I want to remove, though there are several I'd like to see added.
 * Do we want the capitals, e.g. Cairo & Tehran? Or the most interesting travel destinations, perhaps Alexandria and Isfahan for the same two countries? In some cases, it is obvious; I do not think anyone would suggest Ankara instead of Istanbul or Tel Aviv instead of Jerusalem. Pashley (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure on Tehran and Isfahan. Isfahan is obviously more beautiful, but Tehran is a big city that under normal circumstances would be a center of commerce as well as diplomacy and education. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

My only concern with Cairo is that it's also listed in the Cities list of Africa and North Africa. It's not an Asian city so it's a little weird to put it in an Asian region, even if Egypt is in there. Powers (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Point well taken, Powers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Iran is the safest country in the region with a lot of historic and touristic sites. Some big cities are Tehran, Shiraz and Tabriz but Tehran is by far the most central city and it's inevitable to ignore it. The number of tourists is getting doubled in the country each year mainly because of the low costs for tourists.--Doostdar (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you mean it's inevitable to include it, as is currently the case? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly, because main flights pass Tehran. Pivotal highways pass Tehran. Bus terminals are active 7/24. You can go skiing in mountains around Tehran and can visit Shah palaces and various museums. I bet you can not find a room like that in Tehran in any other hotels elsewhere in the Middle East.--Doostdar (talk) 07:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

 * I'd say Tehran should stay since it is the country's main transport hub. As a traveller (1970s so maybe out of date), though, I found both Isfahan and Tabriz far more interesting, and almost everything I heard about Shiraz was positive. Pashley (talk) 08:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Replacing Palmyra
As most of Palmyra has been destroyed, and is currently off limits for regular travellers, we should consider replacement. There are many archaeological sites in Iraq and Syria, unfortunately too dangerous to visit. Some candidates would be Babylon and Çatalhöyük. /Yvwv (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Fortunately the Middle East has quite a few archaeological sites, if I'm not mistaken. Is there maybe some suitable site in a country not yet having any destination listed in Cities or Other destinations? --ϒpsilon (talk) 15:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Cyprus
Should we list Cyprus both on this guide and Europe, like we do for Turkey? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Why not? Cyprus is already mentioned several times in this article, also have a look at the categories of Wikipedia's article w:Cyprus. ϒpsilon (talk) 07:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

 * There's that. And I suppose I'm thinking: Turkey and the Levant are listed here, and Cyprus is in between them. We're pretty much saying that everything surrounding Cyprus is the Middle East, but Cyprus itself isn't. That doesn't make much sense. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

 * I think Cyprus normally isn't considered part of the Middle East. Am I wrong? Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

 * Yes, normally Cyprus is just considered part of Europe. But I've occasionally seen it being placed in both Europe and Asia. Wikipedia does this,apparently because the United Nations Statistics Division for some reason classifies Cyprus as an (Western) Asian country. --ϒpsilon (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

 * It's an island in the Mediterranean. If it's part of the Middle East, are Aegean islands of Greece, too? My understanding is that islands in the Mediterranean are not geographically part of Asia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

 * I too think it's weird to classify Cyprus as a Middle Eastern/Asian country, but apparently some (including the UN) still do just that. --ϒpsilon (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

 * We don't have to follow them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

 * For what it is worth, the discussion for Turkey is now at Talk:Turkey/Archive_2004-2012.
 * I'd say the breadcrumb for Cyprus should definitely point to Europe as it now does, or perhaps to Southeast Europe, Mediterranean Europe or some such region if we create those. Mentioning it in Middle East is OK too, though. Pashley (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

 * There's a difference with the Aegean islands: They're west of Turkey. It makes sense for us to draw a line at Turkey's western border and say "Okay, everything west of this line is not Middle-East, and not covered in this guide". But Cyprus isn't west of Turkey; it's south of Turkey, in between Turkey and the Levant. If the Middle-East ends at Turkey's western border, then I think Cyprus is part of the Middle-East (at least, in terms of it's physical location).

 * As for if Mediterranean islands are part of Asia: That's an unanswerable question of semantics. Maybe some people wouldn't consider Mediterranean islands part of Asia. But by that standard, we may as well say that Britain's not part of Europe. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

[unindent] I moved the chronologically last post to the end of the page, for greater ease in reading. We're talking about traditional, generally-accepted designations. It doesn't follow that if Cyprus is traditionally considered not to be part of the Middle East, that Britain is part of North America. No-one believes that. Some Britons do believe they're not European, but let's not get into that can of worms, please. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

 * I put my post where it was, because it was a response to your post Ikan, not to Pashley's post. I thought new posts weren't simply supposed to go to the bottom of the section, but were supposed to be shown as response to whatever posts your responding to. But Talk page formatting says "When using talk pages, add new paragraphs at the bottom of the page", so maybe that's just a difference between Wikipedia and Wikivoyage.

 * Talk page formatting aside, I suppose my point is: What something's traditionally or culturally considered to be part of, isn't always the same as where it physically is. If Europe ends and Asia begins at the western border of Turkey\Anatolia, then it's clear that (in physical terms) Cyprus is an island off the coast of Asia, not Europe. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

 * Many British are not exactly enthusiastic about Europe and the EU, but to claim it isn't part of Europe on the basis of Mediterranean islands not being part of Asia is very much a non sequitur --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

 * Emmette, we can't base a travel guide solely on objective geography, unless you'd rather get rid of the continent of Europe entirely, in favor of Eurasia, make India and Arabia separate continents, and make several other major changes. See this tectonic map. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

 * Andrewssi2, I don't think that's what I'm saying. I'm just saying that what people traditionally or culturally think of a land as part of, isn't always the same as where that land physically is. Some Brits might say that they're not Europeans, that they're something (culturally) different. But Britain's an island off the coast of Europe, so we can treat it as part of Europe.

 * Ikan, you're right: We can't base a travel guide solely on physical geography. But physical geography should be an important factor (French Guiana is listed under South America). And I'm not suggesting that we remove Cyprus from the Europe guide, just that we include it in this guide. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

 * I would object to saying anything more than "Cyprus is sometimes included in this region but is more commonly considered part of Europe" at the bottom of "Countries and territories". Cyprus is not analogous to Turkey, which is indisputably part of both Europe and Asia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

 * There are lots of areas that are sometimes included in the Middle-East, but not included in this guide (such as Afghanistan and North Africa). But Cyprus is different: If you say that the Middle-East begins at the western borders of Turkey and Egypt (as this guide does, and as is common), then Cyprus is well within the borders of the Middle-East.

 * How about something along the lines of "The island of Cyprus is physically located within this region, but is more commonly thought of as part of Europe"? I think that helps explain the physical-cultural disconnect, that Cyprus is surrounded by the Middle-East but (more or less) culturally European.

 * I'm perfectly happy with the existing text: "Cyprus can also be considered a part of the Middle East but it is generally classified as part of Europe, for political reasons." Do you disagree? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Actuality, I missed that text. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Removing Damascus
In my opinion Damascus should be removed and replaced with another city, maybe Muscat or Doha as Syria is currently in a brutal civil war and very few tourists would even consider going the country. Tourism in the country will likely remain almost non-existant for a very long time. Bobbbcat (talk) 04:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

 * I'm inclined to agree, but Damascus is one of the great cities of the region so arguably it should be listed. If we are going to take it off the list, why not also Baghdad? Other risky cities are listed, e,g. Kabul at Central_Asia & several at Mindanao. Do we or should we have a general policy for such cases?
 * What about cities one does not want to visit due to earthquake, typhoon, volcano, epidemic, etc.? See Boracay for one example. I think currently we just put a warning box in the city article, maybe mention the danger at higher levels. Should we treat that the same as war?
 * Perhaps add a "Not now but .." heading for currently dangerous cities? Pashley (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

 * The precedents have been to keep the "not visitable now" cities of otherwise obvious importance in the list. I think that you are right that if we decide to change this, it should be a policy change, and I suppose the best place to discuss it might be Wikivoyage talk:Article templates, because it relates to at least the country and region templates. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

You guys don't know what the Middle East is
The guy below me is so ignorant lmao he thinks just because Egypt is in Africa, that this contradicts with Egypt also being in the Middle East. Imagine thinking the hub of the Middle East is not in the Middle East. So ignorant..

Anyways, the Middle East is not synonymous with Western Asia nor is it exclusive to West Asia. Why did you re-edit back? This is the correct introduction... "The Middle East is a region in western Asia and north-eastern Africa. The term was created by British military strategists in the 19th century, and definitions of the Middle East vary; it is not simply a geographical term, but also a political one, connoting that it separates Europe ("the West") from the Far East." Saying Egypt is not part of the Middle East but part of Africa is just as ignorant as saying "Saudi Arabia is part of Asia, not the Middle East". The Middle East has never been a continent nor is it synonymous with West Asia. Africa and Asia are continents, the Middle East is a transcontinental region(extends to multiple continents) that is geopolitical meaning its geographical territory is solely based on shared Politics, shared Culture and shared History rather than a shared continent. Why are people this ignorant?

Also context is very important when it comes to geopolitical regions and I want to bring up something regarding North Africa and that is when we say “North Africa” in modern terms, we are actually talking about the Maghreb Berber region rather than the literal meaning of “North Africa” which originally used to simply mean the Northern upper part of Africa. So we are talking about Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya not Egypt. Egypt is in the Middle Eastern region.

"North African ethnicity Many people from the North African region known as the Maghreb (which encompasses modern-day Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya) trace their roots to the Berbers of antiquity."

The Middle East's geographical territory is solely based on shared politics, shared history and shared culture rather than a shared continent which is not the criteria of the region’s geographical makeup.

Anyways, the geographical territory of the Middle East was created way before the Western term. It was created by Arab geographers and Historians such as ibn Khaldun in the Middle Ages and the main criteria was to split the Western Berber Arab countries(Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco) from the Arab mainlands(Egypt, the Levant, The Arabian peninsula and Iraq) the non Arab countries were added to the list when the western terms were created in the 19th and 20th century(Iran, Turkey, Israel and Cyprus). Anyways, the western part of the Arab world was called the “Maghreb” which is an Arabic word meaning “Where the sun sets” referring to the Western part of the Arab world, the other half of the Arab world, if you will.

Also Where is Cairo? Why is the capital of the region not Added? Cairo is literally the Cultural and political center of the Middle East yet it is not included here? hmm and when I tried to include it, you oblivious people deleted it. Why don't you actually let people from the region like me give you an advice on what is the Middle East instead of being completely oblivious and deleting accurate and correct edits?

"The Middle East is a transcontinental region centered on Western Asia, Turkey (both Asian and European), and Egypt (which is mostly in North Africa). Saudi Arabia is geographically the largest Middle Eastern nation while Bahrain is the smallest. The corresponding adjective is Middle Eastern and the derived noun is Middle Easterner. The term has come into wider usage as a replacement of the term Near East (as opposed to the Far East) beginning in the early 20th century."

—The preceding comment was added by 2601:642:C401:6B10:14D7:4004:E170:1BD9 (talk • contribs)
 * Please read this discussion from the very beginning; don't act as if there was never any discussion about the contents of this article before you decided to edit it. And mind your manners and vocabulary...please. Ibaman (talk) 19:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Got an Idea to resolve this confusion (ignorance)
Why don’t you google “Middle East” and look at the first couple of links? It shows the correct representation of the Middle East and google shows the actual travel plans and locations of the Middle East and the method of booking tickets to the region. Again, the Middle East is not synonymous with Western Asia. Why is that so hard for people on here to grasp? It is a transcontinental region that extends to more the 1 continent it literally lies on the intersection of Africa, Asia and Europe. There is no excuse for this level of ignorance.I also invite people to google the Middle East in Arabic(الشرق الأوسط) and check the correct representation of the region. ArabPride (talk) 02:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I think the article is OK as it stands, though it could be more clearly worded. Pashley (talk) 02:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

No it is not ok as it stands
No it is not ok as it stands and there are many contradictions. For one, the article acknowledges that Egypt is in the Middle East yet it doesn't include Cairo(the most important city in the region) another contradiction is that the article acknowledges that Egypt and Turkey are in the region yet on the “Go Next” section it talks about where to go next outside of the Middle East which funny enough it includes “Egypt and Turkey” as the “Next destination” implying that these 2 countries are not in the region even though in other sections of the article it clearly acknowledges that Egypt and Turkey are in the region(Which they are). Does anyone know what they are doing with this article? Is this a meme? Also why is Egypt included in the North African section? Don't people on here understand the context of these geopolitical regions and that "North Africa", particularly when used in the term "North Africa" and the "Middle East", often refers only to the countries of the Berber Maghreb region(Libya, Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco)?

"North African ethnicity" "Many people from the North African region known as the Maghreb (which encompasses modern-day Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya) trace their roots to the Berbers of antiquity." - My Heritage DNA Testing Company

Also, why is there no one from the region involved in this article? All I see is western names talking about our region without any knowledge of the context, History, Culture and politics of the region. They don't even know what the region is in the first place confusing it with Western Asia. ArabPride (talk) 02:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

 * As previously requested, you should read this entire page of discussion. You should also dial back your invective and aggressive indignation, because the only way you have a chance to get a wiki to do anything even slightly controversial your way is to get a consensus of the participants - whatever their national origins - behind you, and I imagine you are intelligent enough to know that being belligerent is the least likely way for you to accomplish that.

 * All that said, I am ready to turn this article into "Asian Near East", "Western Asia" or some other term for this part of Asia that we can agree on, turn "Middle East" into an extra-region, and be done with this long, annoying argument that goes back to the earliest stages of discussion, once and for all.

 * And for User:ArabPride, please read Breadcrumb navigation, in order to understand why an extra-continental region doesn't work in Wikivoyage's organizational hierarchy. Thank you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Yea I kinda did notice Wikivoyage's problem
Yea I kinda noticed Wikivoyage's problematic system which only operates on a continental level which makes no sense. Then how can we add articles regarding a transcontinental region that includes more than a single continent like the Middle East and be accurate about it? On a flawed system like Wikivoyage's we wont even be able to accurately make articles about transcontinental countries such as Russia, Turkey, Egypt, etc where their geographical territory extends to more than a single continent. So I will give you that, the website does operate continentally which is insufficient for making articles about complex geographical nations and geopolitical regions. But no I don't want to turn it into "Western Asia" because that is what im arguing against. The Middle East is not synonymous with West Asia, but it is a transcontinental and it lies on the intersection of Northeast Africa(Egypt), West Asia(Levant, Arabian peninsula, Iraq and Iran), and Europe or Eurasia(Turkey)

I am sorry for being harsh and rude initially.

 * Read Extraregion. But the answer in terms of Turkey, Russia and Egypt is to breadcrumb them to the continent the majority of their population is on. And if you can think of a better system of organization than breadcrumbs, please suggest it at Breadcrumb navigation. It's easy to criticize the imperfections of any system created by human beings, but mere criticism does nothing to improve the site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Also, we don't need a new section for each of your comments. Also, please sign your talk page posts with four tildes in a row, like this ~ .--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Pashley's edits are welcome as a form of simplification; however Egypt remains in the country list and on the map. I agree with User:ArabPride inasmuch as our article is inconsistent. We shouldn't include Egypt in one list and exclude Cairo in another. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Cities list
I added Cairo per discussion above.

That is the 10th city, so to keep within policy we should delete one. I'd say Amman, but what do others think? Pashley (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I'd say Mecca; most probably, the whole majority of Wikivoyagers are not practicing Muslims, and would never ever get a chance to set foot on it. Baghdad comes to mind as well, as it's been badly damaged by decades of war and therefore, most probably, will not be in a "touristic" shape in the next decade. But I'm digressing. Ibaman (talk) 18:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Damascus of course, which due to the still-ongoing war was deemed unsuitable for even a few days on the Main Page as a Discovery in 2016. Ypsilon (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * For the record, yesterday I saw some videos on YouTube, of tourists going to Damascus, visiting the souk and Ummayad mosque, in 2019, and encouraging others to do so, even if most of the city is still in ruins. That's why I didn't mention it. Ibaman (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The other option is excluding Egypt from the article altogether, since this article is a top-level region of Asia, and 95% of Egypt, including Cairo, is not in Asia. There are a lot of candidates for exclusion, and I can see the arguments for removing all except Amman.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've too read about tourism to the some Mediterranean resort of Syria (Latakia?). Nevertheless, as we can see on the dynamic map there's already a quite high concentration of POIs between Beirut and Petra. And at least based on the news my impression is that Syria would be the most dangerous country (even more than Iraq and Yemen) in the Middle East to visit right now. --Ypsilon (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Cairo should be in the cities list of an extra-region Middle East article, not one breadcrumbed to Asia. And I beg everyone's pardon for saying this, but the idea of excluding one of the world's most visited cities just because non-Muslims can't visit it is ridiculous! Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Since non-Muslims are the majority on this planet, and we're all about people visiting places, I don't think it's so ridiculous to exclude from a list of nine Middle Eastern cities the one out of hundreds that a majority of people can't visit.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 06:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose fully including Egypt in two non-extra-region articles, especially in that Cairo is indisputably in Africa; only the Sinai is in Asia, and it has no really important cities. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

 * It strikes me as remarkably silly to even consider a Middle East article without Egypt or Cairo. Egypt is indisputably part of the region & Cairo one of its most important cities. Turkey & Iran are similar cases, certainly part of this region but also of Europe & Central Asia respectively. I'd consider Istanbul & Cairo the region's top two cities.
 * How that interacts with our hierarchical arrangement of articles and breadcrumbs seems open to discussion. I do not think it matters much whether the breadcrumb for Egypt point to Middle East or North Africa. Nor do I think the Mid-East needs to become a Extraregion or that we need a new region for "Western Asia", "Arab countries" or whatever.
 * For an old related discussion see Talk:Turkey/Archive_2004-2012. Pashley (talk) 12:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

 * What I consider perhaps not silly but certainly unfortunate is to have a breadcrumb navigation system and choose to mess it up to make some kind of point. I said my piece and don't see a point in repeating anything. Choose to disregard my points and be messy, since that seems to be what people have consistently chosen to do in this and a few other IMO unnecessary cases. The problem of where to breadcrumb transcontinental countries such as Russia and Turkey is an unavoidable problem. The problem of what to do with this region is an avoidable problem people have chosen to have and could choose not to continue having. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

 * If we really need to make this fit our hierarchy & breadcrumbs, then I think the way to do that would be to create a new in-hierarchy article & turn this one into an extra-hierarchical region. I do not think that is necessary, but would not object. Pashley (talk) 13:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I agree with Ikan Kekek that listing Cairo in the 5–9 cities is at odds with the way Wikivoyage treats regions. I also think it would be justifiable to remove Damascus and Mecca for reasons others have stated. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Also agree with IK about Cairo.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

 * In terms of the discussion on whether to eliminate war-torn cities from the list, I quote in full from my comment above:

 * The precedents have been to keep the "not visitable now" cities of otherwise obvious importance in the list. I think that you are right that if we decide to change this, it should be a policy change, and I suppose the best place to discuss it might be Wikivoyage talk:Article templates, because it relates to at least the country and region templates. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC) Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I've started a discussion at Wikivoyage talk:Article skeleton templates. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I started this discussion a couple of days ago. Let me introduce myself, Im originally from Egypt and I was actually born in Cairo. I moved to the U.S. when I was 10 in 1998. We define ourselves as an Egyptian country, an Arab country a Middle Eastern country, and lastly, Continentally an African country. The Same way goes for how an Iraqi would view himself Iraqi> Arab> Middle Eastern> Continentally Asian. I am new to this site so I don't really understand Wikivoyage "hierarchy" system when it comes to regions but I did notice that it operates from a continental aspect. But does following this type of "hierarchy" worth being inaccurate for? Should this so called "hierarchy", come at the cost of spreading legitimate and accurate information about a very important region? Stating or even implying that the Middle East and Western Asia are "Synonymous" is a sin and it is blatantly wrong. The region is transcontinental and lies on the intersection of North East Africa, Western Asia and Southeast Europe via Turkey. Also many people confuse the term "North Africa" because they don't actually know the context behind it. North Africa in its classical definition simply means the countries that shape the top North part of the African continent, meanwhile, "North Africa", particularly when used in the term North Africa and the Middle East, often refers only to the countries of the Berber Maghreb region(Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco). Many people confuse the modern day definition of North Africa and lump Egypt with it.

"North African ethnicity"

"Many people from the North African region known as the Maghreb (which encompasses modern-day Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya) trace their roots to the Berbers of antiquity. " - my heritage DNA. This was the original criteria for the divide that happened way before the Western term "Middle East" was coined in the 19th century. It was a divide made by Arab Historians and geographers in the Middle Ages such as Ibn Khaldun and the criteria was to divide the Western Berber part of the Arab world (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya) from the Oriental part of the Arab world(Egypt, the Levant, Arabian Peninsula and Iraq) it was called "al Mashriq" which means where the sun rises, referring to the East, opposite of "Al Maghreb" aka where the sun sets, referring to the West. Of course when the western terms were created for the same region in the 19th and 20th century (Near East/Middle East) they Added the non Arab countries(Turkey, Cyprus, Iran and Israel). ArabPride (talk)
 * We're all waiting for a clear itemized proposal from you, and if it's about breadcrumb navigation, don't post that part here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I have a couple of proposals & think we need to choose between them. To me, a "Middle East" article that omits Egypt and/or Cairo would be absurd. I do not think we need to change either the breadcrumb system or the current breadcrumb linking Egypt to North Africa, & if some think we do then those discussions should take place elsewhere. Also any discussion of a policy change that might remove Baghdad & Damascus because they are not currently safe.
 * That leaves two possibilities:
 * Shrug our virtual collective shoulders & admit that, while the breadcrumb hierarchy is a fine & useful thing, it does not always fit reality. "All grammars leak". Accept that Egypt is one of the exceptions, leave the article as it is, & get on with writing a travel guide.
 * Invoke the mechanism we have developed for dealing with exceptions. Turn this article into a Extraregion and create a new article, perhaps West Asia, that will fit into the hierarchy comfortably.
 * I mildly prefer the first, but could accept either. Pashley (talk) 14:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I've made clear where I stand on this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Topic on the Countries and territories.
There are some errors that I have noticed in this section of the article. For one, Iran is not in central Asia, it is part of Western Asia. The second thing is that the Middle East is not synonymous with Western Asia so it should not be part of the criteria in this article for a country to be in west Asia in order to be “Officially” a Middle Eastern country, which makes the second part of this section irrelevant. It is irrelevant to mention that Turkey is a European country(which is also wrong because the Majority of the country is in West Asia), or that Egypt is in the African continent. The Middle East is not a continental based region, it is a geopolitical based region. It is a transcontinental region where its geographical makeup is based on shared politics, shared culture and shared history rather than a shared continent. And that is why Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia are part of west Asia but they are not part of the Middle East. When will people realize this basic information about the region? It is almost 2020 and people today still think the Middle East is a continent. ArabPride (talk) 04:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Welcome back, ArabPride. Why do you think repeating yourself a few months later will produce a different outcome? I'm not saying you're wrong, and as you've seen, I think it's a problem to treat a region breadcrumbed to Asia as an intercontinental region and agree that we should have a "Western Asia" article and a "Middle East" extra-region article. But as you saw, discussion above produced no change in the consensus. So why not concentrate on doing something else to improve this site, or failing that, something else to enjoy yourself? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Hey how are you man. My past argument on here did produce some change. It was about Cairo being not included in the “cities” section and my discussion allowed people to realize how ridiculous that was and you guys have thankfully added Cairo in the list. As for having a dedicated Middle East extra-region, I think it should be made but for now let us gradually try to change the things that could be changed before that can be accomplished. —The preceding comment was added by ArabPride (talk • contribs)

 * I'm good, but I disagree with Cairo being included in an article breadcrumbed to Asia. But I was overruled and therefore gave up fighting. I don't think you've made a new argument above, have you? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:53, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Yea there are some things that could be changed without disrupting the Asia breadcrumb. For example, Iran is not in central Asia, it is part of West Asia and Turkey is mostly in West Asia and not a European country(only a small part of Turkey is in Europe). Also there is no need to make Turkey, Egypt and Iran sound like they are “Neighboring countries” because that simply implodes the entire article and contradicts their inclusion. These countries are not simply “neighboring countries” but they are part of the region. So I don’t think removing that part of the section would disrupt the Asia breadcrumb, what do you think? —The preceding comment was added by ArabPride (talk • contribs)
 * Please don't forget to sign your edits to talk pages. Iran is part of this region. Why is it false to say that it's also part of Central Asia? Would you prefer if we say some people consider it to be part of Central Asia as well? It makes sense that some people would group Iran with Afghanistan and former Soviet Central Asia. Turkey is both European and Asian, as exemplified by its biggest city, which is in both continents. I'm not seeing where you're seeing Turkey, Egypt and Iran described as neighbors to one another. Did you read this passage that way? "Some countries included by most definitions, and included in our list below, are also important parts of neighboring areas." Neighboring areas, meaning areas that neighbor the Middle East. A country is not the same as a larger area. But perhaps there's a clearer way to state this point. Is this better? "Some countries included in the Middle East by most definitions, and included in our list below, also overlap into other regions." Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Yea that is much better. "Some countries included in the Middle East by most definitions, and included in our list below, also overlap into other regions.". And sorry for being a noob with this talk system Arabpride (talk)

 * No problem. Does anyone object to the proposed wording change? If not, we can make the change in 48 hours or so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

 * No objections.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

 * I strongly prefer the current wording, mainly because it mentions the specific countries in question.
 * Iran does belong in this article, of course, but it also has a strong relationship with Central Asia. Large parts of that region were once part of the Persian Empire & at least two of the languages (Dari in Afghanistan & Tajik in Tajikstan) are variants of Persian. Pashley (talk) 09:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I did change the wording from "Iran is part of Central Asia" to "Iran has strong connections to Central Asia". Pashley (talk) 10:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

 * Pashley, it's in the sentence after the one in question that countries are specified. I didn't propose to change that sentence. The sentence I'm proposing to change is "Some countries included by most definitions, and included in our list below, are also important parts of neighboring areas." Are you still opposed, and if so, why? Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

 * OK, I had misunderstood what was being changed. Objection withdrawn. Pashley (talk) 09:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I just want to remind you guys of something very important, and that is terms like “central Asia, North Africa, West Asia, East Asia, etc” describe directions of a continent and not whether or not they have cultural and historical ties. Unlike regions that are geopolitical and are solely based on shared cultural, political and historical characteristics like the Middle East or the Maghreb region. So let’s say if a country is not in the Northern direction of a continent then it simply isn't in the northern direction of a continent. If a country is not in the western direction of a continent then it simply isn't in the western direction of a continent. And finally if a country isn't quite in the central part of a continent then it simply isn't in the central part of a continent. User:Arabpride (talk)

 * Right, though I think we all know that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

 * Thanks, Pashley. The sentence we discussed above was changed accordingly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Secularism in Turkey
I agree with this edit in general, and certainly with the rationale for it. However, I don't think Turkey is a "largely secular nation", but instead, a largely religious nation being run by an Islamist party that's been making it increasingly more sectarian and less secular. So how about if we just eliminate that phrase, so as to change this:

Nowadays it is a prosperous, modern and largely secular nation populated by ethnic Turks with sizeable Kurdish and Arab minorities.

to this:

Nowadays it is a prosperous and modern nation populated by ethnic Turks with sizeable Kurdish and Arab minorities.

Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Probably better. Turkey is legally, constitutionally secular, but the political reality is as you describe it.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your feedback. If no-one has any objection, I will change this sentence accordingly within a day or so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Done. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Workaround to fit with the hierarchy
I have seen that there have been discussions on whether Egypt should be included in the Middle East article. I have proposed the following workaround to fit with the hierarchy WV use to group countries. --Soumya-8974 (talk) 08:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

 * Egypt is generally considered to be part of the Middle East. However, it is grouped with the countries of Northern Africa because the most part of Egypt is in Africa.

Discussion
Very late, but this proposal looks good to me and hence support. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

 * Oppose. Egypt is part of the Middle East. If that means Middle East has to be treated as an extra-hierarchical region, so be it. Pashley (talk) 10:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Pashley Egypt is breadcrumbed under Northern Africa though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not a problem. We can make Middle East an extra-region and use West Asia in our breadcrumbs to cover only countries in Asia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Egypt???
Isn't Egypt in Africa, not the Middle East? (That is obvious, but why is it here???). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

 * I mean, yes, it is in Africa and in the Middle East (and the Sinai is in Asia), but I have stated above that Middle East should be an extra-hierarchical region and West Asia should encompass only countries that are in Asia (or primarily in Asia, as Turkey is). However, I have been overruled to date. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Primarily Africa though. I think we should do somewhat like Soumya's proposal above (but I'd have supported your proposal at that time if I was here then). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Swap Beirut for Damascus
I think we should make this swap. Damascus is one of the most historic cities in the world, and is considered one of the main cultural centres of the Arab world alongside Baghdad. Compared to Beirut, Damascus has played a much more significant role in world history. The dog2 (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Luxor is older, cooler, more historically significant (3200+-year-old royal tombs, consider this) and easier to visit than both. Ibaman (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Luxor is nice and would be better than either of the two, but can it really be listed here when the part of Egypt it's in is not the Sinai Peninsula? -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 21:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We already have Cairo listed, so I think we should avoid listing a second Egyptian city. The dog2 (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * yeah, if it's our intention to stay "current" and "up-to-date with facts on the ground", MAYBE we should not feature prominently places that are currently at war and unrest, and hardly visitable, and MAYBE write a disclaimer or even a warning box about this fact. And there are many sites here in War zone safety status. But I digress. Both places would and will be on my personal lifetime list of places to visit. But Luxor, I've been there recently and cannot hype it enough, it's not possible. Digressing again, sorry. Ibaman (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * My issue is less so about stability and more so geographical. It's too far south for me to consider it as part of the Middle East. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 21:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * hahahaha, the immortal "is this a proper region?" old discussion rising from its grave once again. How funny. Ibaman (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If we're going to adopt the rule that places not stable enough for regular tourists to visit should not be featured on our city lists, then Baghdad would need to be excluded from this list too. But as it now stands, we have Kabul listed in Central Asia, and we have Kyiv and Odesa listed under Eastern Europe. All these will have to be removed too if we enact such a rule. But what's for sure is that in the absence of wars, Damascus is a much more historically significant city than Beirut. And with regard to Luxor, I don't doubt that it's great to visit and very historic, but as SHB2000 says, it is a little too far from Asia to be considered part of the Middle East, and is better listed under North Africa. The dog2 (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * hahahaha, very funny listing a very not-Middle Eastern destination in the Cities section. Very funny. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 22:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

 * guys, seriously now, please read or re-read all the previous topics in this discussion. Luxor was meant as a light joke only. Let's abide the previous consensuses already achieved for a start. Ibaman (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * omw, I can't believe I actually fell for it... -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 23:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The moment you mentioned "Egypt doesn't belong" I went "wow, this's been talked over", went to check the page and there it is, it's not even archived. Lack of attention, my bad. Ibaman (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And it still doesn't belong in a region breadcrumbed to Asia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

 * A relevant past discussion is at Wikivoyage talk:Article skeleton templates. My view, then and now, is that for the list of 5-9 cities in non-bottom-level region articles, we should generally favor cities that are realistically visitable over cities that aren't, because that serves the traveller. From my understanding of the security situation in Baghdad and Damascus, I think they should both be omitted from the list in this article for the foreseeable future. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

 * In that case we will need to replace Baghdad with another city. Maybe Doha? The dog2 (talk) 05:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe Ankara or some other Turkish city, alternatively? -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 05:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

City swap
OK, so based on the previous discussion, it seems people don't want to include war-torn cities in the list. So if that is the case Baghdad should be dropped, and we need to find a replacement. I propose Doha and SHB2000 proposes Ankara. I'd rather go for Doha so we don't have two cities in the same country (which is also why I didn't pick Abu Dhabi, Jeddah or Riyadh), but let's see what everyone says. The dog2 (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Doha sounds reasonable to me. Ankara would be fine but we do already have a Turkish city on the list. Jeddah or Riyadh might make sense too; Mecca is a unique destination so I can see a case for including another city in Saudi Arabia. (Of course there's no requirement to replace Baghdad with anything – it's perfectly fine to list eight cities instead of nine – but given there are a lot of major cities in this region, it probably makes sense to add something.) My travel experience in the Middle East is limited, so I would be eager to hear from people who are more familiar with the region. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * While I agree that it makes sense to choose cities that actually can be visited, without major fear of bombs, I wouldn't like that to be our main criteria. Sadly, in large parts of the world, war or unrest are common, and we might exclude important destinations that could be visited in more peaceful times, and forget to readd them when things settle – or have to have the same discussions over and over about whether Beirut or Jerusalem is safe enough with the tragedy in Gaza, what city to remove to get Baghdad back to the list and so on.
 * An argument can be had for retaining cities like Damascus even if it isn't a destination to recommend for the moment, to remind of the heritage of the region. above and the linked Wikivoyage talk:Article skeleton templates (where the discussion was continued) came to the conclusion that Damascus indeed should be removed, but I think the decision shouldn't be made without considering other aspects. Having only Russian cities in Eastern Europe could be seen as a statement I don't like.
 * –LPfi (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If I understand correctly, it sounds like your point is that these things should be judged on a case-by-case basis taking into account all relevant considerations. I agree with that, and maybe I should have said so more clearly in my comment in the section above (I was trying to be concise and link to the old discussion for the nuances). As I said in the linked discussion, it would not be worth rewriting the lists for short-term emergencies or disasters. But as far as I know Baghdad has been unsafe for leisure travel for twenty years – this is not a short-term issue. I also don't think removing Baghdad would look like a political statement – the list will still include a wide range of cities from several different countries, and it is plainly sensible for a travel guide to recommend cities that travellers can realistically visit rather than cities that are too dangerous. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. I agree. I just felt that the opening posting of this section was worded too categorically, and might be interpreted as establishing consensus if the discussion bypassed the issues. –LPfi (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * My rationale for Ankara is to get a different representation of Türkiye since Istanbul isn't very representative of all of the country, but Doha, QA, also works for me. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 20:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

 * I'd add Isfahan before Ankara, since it is an amazing place to visit -- lots of fine architecture & a top city for carpets. Ankara does have some fine museums including a lot of Hittite relics, and Gordion is nearby.
 * One could also make case for Aden; it is historically important & we do not currently list a Yemeni city. Maybe too dangerous now?
 * Doha is certainly important as a transport hub. I do not know how much else there is. Pashley (talk) 06:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

 * We already have Tehran listed for Iran. But certainly, Iran alone has many historic cities that would be worth visiting. Doha is known for its opulent shopping malls, its souk, the Museum of Islamic Arts, and a historic fort on its outskirts. Based on my readings, Doha is very similar to Dubai but a little more conservative. For instance, alcohol and pork are not as easily available to non-Muslims in Doha compared to Dubai. The dog2 (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

 * So about Aden: if the whole point is to (temporarily?) remove otherwise important cities in war-torn countries, it would be totally senseless to replace any of them with Aden, at a time when the Houthis are continuing to engage in hostilities and attacks on civil shipping. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, all of Yemen at the moment is off-limits. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 09:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, in the absence of war and long-term instability, Baghdad, Damascus, Aleppo, Aden and Sana'a should be considered for listing given their long and rich histories. Unfortunately, it is what it is now. So if there's no objections in 48 hours, I'll swap Baghdad for Doha. The dog2 (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Would it be worth adding something like this, after the city list?
 * Several other cities in the region — Damascus, Baghdad, Aden and others — are historically important and well provided with attractions, but are not listed above because, as of early 2024, visiting them would be quite dangerous.

I'd say 'yes', but it does break our 7+-2 rule. Pashley (talk) 12:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

 * The rule is about avoiding long lists, which the addition wouldn't make it. One should not use such additions to squeeze in one's favourite city, but i don't see a problem adding such a paragraph in cases like this. –LPfi (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I would support these mentions, too. They'd be in a sentence, not part of the list. Aleppo should be included among the mentioned cities. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, given the situation, we can make such a disclaimer. And I think Sana'a is also a historically significant. Its old town is a . The dog2 (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. Pashley (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

 * OK, but which cities should be listed? I had three above & two more were suggested. I ended up with four when I added the text. There are quite a few others that might be added: Gaza, Hebron, Sana'a, Erbil, ...
 * My current thinking is that "Damascus, Baghdad and others" would be enough. Pashley (talk) 23:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Damascus and Baghdad are probably the most important in Arab history, but Aleppo is also a historically significant city, and had a large Armenian community before the civil war started and Al-Qaeda started kidnapping them. I don't think Gaza will have any historical sites left since the Israeli bombing campaign has basically levelled the entire city. The dog2 (talk) 05:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Why was Cairo replaced with Doha? Aren't Doha and Dubai unnecessarily similar? I haven't seen any arguing for removing Cairo in the discussion above. Moreover, the edit was done with no edit summary – which I find unacceptable. –LPfi (talk) 06:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Absolutely not a good move. One could easily argue that Cairo is the most important city in the region, or perhaps second to Istanbul. Pashley (talk) 07:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Reverted. Pashley (talk) 07:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, it was a fingerslip from working on my phone. I was adding Doha to replace Baghdad which had removed. The removal of Cairo wasn't intentional. Sorry. The dog2 (talk) 13:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Although there are good reasons to remove Egypt from the region, or to turn it into an extra-region, which have been repeatedly discussed above... Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * While I do think Cairo should be removed (since it is not categorized beneath this article), a better city to replace it would be Muscat, not Doha. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 10:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * While I haven't been to any of those three cities, that's a good point, as Muscat contrasts more with Arab Gulf cities like Dubai and Abu Dhabi than Doha does. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No, Egypt & Cairo should definitely stay; see extensive discussion above. I would not go beyond that -- e.g. adding Alexandria (which is an important city but not one of the region's top 9) or including Sudan or Libya which some writers call part of the Middle East -- but would dig in my heels for Cairo. Pashley (talk) 00:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with identifying the Middle East as including Egypt, Libya and Sudan. I do have a problem with making it a regular region breadcrumbed to Asia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Middle East


text:
Talk:Trøndelag

I have remowed region Møre og Romsdal. In my opinion this county is part of West Norway. The landscape with high mountains and fjords has more in common with West Norway than Middle Norway. Tough I'm aware of the fact that the northern part of the county might be considered a part of Middle Norway. At least I don't think we can have a link from both the Middle Norway and West Norway-article. Any comment are welcome! (WT-en) ViMy 13:22, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

Move listings
I removed the tag as there is very little to say about each town (except for Trondheim). Except for Trondheim there are just small or smallish towns. As for most of Norway travel information is better organized by wider areas, towns and municipalities tend to be too small for separate articles. --Erik den yngre (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You say that, but there are six extant city articles, and four more (the redlinks in the 'Cities' list) which are presumably at least potentially viable articles. Specific listings always go at the bottom of the hierarchy; where possible, in a city article. So, the cathedral listing should be on the Trondheim page, and Røros 'see' listing should be integrated to the Røros city listing. The other two could stay here as See listings if there's no alternative article.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The redlinked "cities" should not be developed as articles. Melhus and Stjørdal is better included under Trondheim, I dont think there will ever be proper articles for these villages. Levanger is a fine wooden town but there is not much to say and might as well be listed in the main article Trøndelag. Brekstad is a village (calls itself as city....oh my) and known only as the Norway's main airforce base (home of F16 interceptors and F35 fighter-bombers) - Austrått manor can be listed in the main article Trøndelag. Hell is known because of the name but is actually part of Stjørdal "town" and not at all a destination, perhaps a 10 min stop to look at the "Hell" sign. Namsos and Røros are worth keeping, Røros in particular because it is a UNESCO site. Oppdal too because it is the main ski resort. Hessdalen can be listed in the main Trøndelag article, absolutly no reason for a separate article. Orkanger is fine but not stuff for a separate article, Thamshavn railway and the mining museum at Løkken can be listed in the main article for Trøndelag. This is typical for Norway, things are scattered. --Erik den yngre (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Good morning Erik, that's great. Thanks for the explanation. If, in your opinion, the redlinks will never be viable articles, we should at the very least delink them, if not delete from the page altogether. I'll delink them, and if you subsequently want to either delete them or put a short "blurb" about them, you can.
 * On the other hand, I really do think there's no good reason for Trondheim cathedral to have a full listing here, so I'm going to plunge forward and copy the details to the city article.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I redirected Melhus to Trondheim. Other articles also need to be reorganized. Erik den yngre (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you aware of the discussion about not avoiding proper listings in the region articles? If there are sights that would not make it to the top nine of the region, but are still listed here because they have no other place, they get undue attention, especially as those listings need to be extensive, handling how to get there, whether there is lodging in the vicinity and whatnot.
 * Merging small places to a common article is fine, but having the subarticles together cover only part of the region makes for problems describing the rest of it – both discouraging contributions and giving undue weight to the info that is added.
 * –LPfi (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I see the point about undue attention, but I don't see any other way of doing it. Austrått for instance is near Brekstad in Ørland. There is no place to list Austrått except in this main article. There is no reason to have an article on Brekstad, nothing there except Austrått. One solution is perhaps to make "subregional" articles. There was a similar discussion for Hordaland where villages are too small and the county too big, whereas Hardanger is about right size and a natural destination. Traditional districts of Trøndelag are less well known and can be difficult to understand for foreign travellers: Namdalen, Innherred, Fosen, Outer Trøndelag and the southern uplands. Erik den yngre (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I can see both sides here. On one side, we have the valid argument that we shouldn't have these listings in region articles, but on the other side, local knowledge that there isn't somewhere else where these articles would fit. Perhaps some POIs that are near cities for which we have articles, but are technically in separate villages, should be included in the respective city articles. Going by the map, it seems that in Trøndelag, #1 should go in Trondheim, #2 in Røros, #'s 5, 8, and 9 in Stjørdal, and do #1 in Oppdal, while I think the other listings could perhaps remain in this region article because there is no-where else for them to go. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 17:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. This article is still an outline and needs some development. So my suggestion is that we can add a few more points to the list, then after some time we can see if some (lesser) points could be moved to the nearest town for which there are articles. Erik den yngre (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. I think that is what is closest to consensus. –LPfi (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Trøndelag


text:
Talk:Middlesbrough

Philip Barker writes: "I have added a small entry about Middlesbrough Amateur Swimming Club (MASC)". I have also included two new entries: "Higher Education" and "Walking and Rambling".

New Topics
Two new topics entered for Middlesbrough: *Higher Education *Walking and Rambling.

Too much HTML
This page has way too much HTML in it. I think a search-and-replace would get most of it out. --(WT-en) Evan 10:52, 24 December 2006 (EST)

title: Talk:Middlesbrough


text:
Talk:Middletown (Dauphin County)

Looks like a quick delete here. Middletown page exists, info here worthless by anonymous user.

title: Talk:Middletown (Dauphin County)


text:
Talk:Midland (Texas)

Midland in the NY Times
A small town in the Bush

Well, isn't that exciting? – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 22:50, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:Midland (Texas)


text:
Talk:Midlands

Change Of Name
Heart of England is the marketing slogan of the tourist board for this region, NOT the name of the region. In general usage in the UK it would be called The Midlands; in more international usage The English Midlands. -- (WT-en) Chris j wood 19:55, 18 Jul 2004 (EDT)

 * What about Midlands (England)? --(WT-en) Evan 23:00, 18 Jul 2004 (EDT)

 * Evan. Yup, that probably is better; English Midlands is putting the disambiguator first, isn't it. Actually I think I'm going to split this region into two, as it has too many counties in it right now, and doing so will reflect the official regional definitions (see Talk:England/OfficialRegions). In which case I'll name the results West Midlands (England) and East Midlands (England). That seem ok?. -- (WT-en) Chris j wood 13:57, 19 Jul 2004 (EDT)

Misplaced Destinations or Missing Shires?
Are these destinations misplaces or are the Shires left out of the region list?
 * The Cotswolds - a range of rolling hills - also appears in Gloucestershire.
 * The Peak District National Park - Britain's first ever National Park, set up in 1951. Also appears in Yorkshire.

-- (WT-en) Huttite 23:49, 4 Feb 2005 (EST)

Both the Cotswolds and the Peak District are large enough to embrace more than one county and / or region - they can't be placed into simply one box (WT-en) Pjamescowie 02:35, 5 Feb 2005 (EST)

West /East Midlands
These are the current Wikivoyage English regions, created in 2008. I am moving the content to these pages. (WT-en) Chris1515 18:12, 2 March 2010 (EST)

title: Talk:Midlands


text:
Talk:Mid-Ohio

 * Richland County (Ohio) is misdirected on this page. (WT-en) 2old 11:42, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
 * [[Delaware County (ohio) misdirected on this page.

title: Talk:Mid-Ohio


text:
Talk:Midway Islands

For future reference the Project:CIA World Factbook 2002 import can be found at Talk:Midway Islands/CIA World Factbook 2002 import. -- (WT-en) Huttite 21:23, 17 Jun 2005 (EDT)

title: Talk:Midway Islands


text:
Talk:Midwest

Untitled
Regarding the major cities listed, while I wouldn't suggest removing Milwaukee from the list, Columbus, Ohio is one of the 25 largest combined MSAs in the U.S. (while Milwaukee is not). Other than Columbus, all of the below big cities are on the Wikivoyage list.

Rank Combined Statistical Area State(s) 2005 3 Chicago–Naperville–Michigan City IL–IN–WI 9,661,840 9 Detroit–Warren–Flint MI 5,428,000 13 Minneapolis–St. Paul–St. Cloud MN–WI 3,467,108 14 Cleveland–Akron–Elyria OH 2,931,774 16 St. Louis–St. Charles–Farmington MO–IL 2,840,179 20 Cincinnati–Middletown–Wilmington OH–KY–IN 2,113,011 21 Kansas City–Overland Park–Kansas City MO–KS 2,015,282 23 Indianapolis–Anderson–Columbus IN 1,958,453 24 Columbus–Marion–Chillicothe OH 1,936,351 —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 69.160.220.98 (talk • contribs) 14 Jan 2006

 * As the 2010 census information is used in the List of Metropolitan Statistical Areas this section should be edited. If we're going by the "in the top 25" parameter, would it not make more sense to just include those cities (which is now four instead of nine) and rank them according to population? It would look like this:
 * * 3. Chicago (9,461,105)
 * * 13. Detroit (4,296,250)
 * * 16. Minneapolis-St. Paul (3,279,833)
 * * 19. St. Louis (2,812,896)

 * I'm going to wait a few days and change it if nobody objects. Minnecologies (talk) 12:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Reducing the list to four wouldn't be very helpful to our readers. We aim to have between 5 and 9 (usually 9) items in a list.  The idea here is to identify the most commonly sought cities and let users link directly to them instead of having to go through the state hierarchy.  We should probably remove the bit about which cities are in the Top 25, since that does change from time to time.  LtPowers (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

 * I have now done this. --Peter Talk 17:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Sleep section
Just checking--there isn't even supposed to be a sleep section for region pages, much less hotel listings, right? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:19, 3 March 2008 (EST)

 * That's my understanding (as you probably noticed) per Project:Region article template. I guess there could be exceptions where it might be reasonable to have an overview, but certainly at the state level it is ridiculous to have listings. It is my understanding that certain regions like smaller island nations are allowed to have Sleep sections because the towns/villages will not likely ever have articles. -- (WT-en) OldPine 22:24, 3 March 2008 (EST)

NO stereotyping
Can we stop with stereotyping midwesteners as some kind of 'moral nice down to earth' label. People are like that in every area of the country ,and there are rude people in every part of the country.Personality is not related to where someone grew up. There are down to earth people who grew up in southern california,new jersey,new york city exactly like the midwest. there are rude people who were born and raised in wisconsin,illinois,michigan,ohio,indiana and every state in the country.please stop it.midwesteners are just like everyone else. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 66.90.29.229 (talk • contribs)

 * Midwesterners are exceptionally down to earth and nice—I think you are being confused by the occasional rude East Coast carpetbagger like myself. Broad generalizations have a place in travel guides, especially at this high and superficial level in our Project:Geographical hierarchy. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 04:11, 7 November 2009 (EST)

Midwest B.S
fOR THE last time,there are the same amount of down to earth people in the midwest as there are in the northeast,east coast,west coast,southwest and plain states,just as there the same amount of rude people in the northeast as there are in the midwest,west coast,plain states,southwest,east coast etc. I am sick of labeling midwesteners that when it is about personality not where one grew up.I guarantee if someone did a research one would find that each state has the same proportion of nice 'down to earth' people and 'rude people'. There are nice down to earth northeast people and there are nice down to earth californians (ever hear of Rick Warren), there are rude northeasteners there are rude californians there are down to earth midwesteners,there are rude midwesteners,there are rude southeners there are nice down to earth southeners.Please stop making B.S UP. If you want your stupid article to spew lies so be it,it's a bold faced lie and you all know it.

 * As Peter states above, there has to be some sort of generalization made, because this article covers an entire region. If you feel that it is misrepresented, I think your best option would be to write the header in a way that you think represents the region best and post it HERE first to let others have a look at it. If it sounds nice and representative of the area, then we can transfer it to the actual page. If there are issues, people can work them out here. Of course, it may be decided that people prefer what is already there or that they like a little of both and will have to reach a compromise. If you don't propose anything different, then it is doubtful that any changes will be made. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 14:54, 7 November 2009 (EST)

read
Enough with the 'midwest is down to earth' b.s. First off all anyone from a small town reguardless of what part of the country it is will be down to earth. There are down to earth people in every area of the country. People who were born and raised in the small towns in Arizona, Maine, New Jersey(ecspecially south New Jersey) are just as down to earth as midwesteners are (and there are plenty of small towns in Arizona and New Jersey). The artical fails to mention Chicago ,the country's 3rd largest city ,as a huge population center. And I don't know why Ohio and Michigan is on this list.Ohio is exactly the same as New Jersey ,New York,Pennsylvania,Massachussetts.Ohio is a rust belt city.Ohio looks and feels exactly the same as New Jersey does.Michigan is also an eastern state mistakenly labeled a midwest state.If Ohio and Michigan are listed as midwest states,then I am going to add New Jersey as one (and if you laugh, what is the difference between areas around Chicago and areas around NYC??) BOwash is the same as Chipitt.If you don't add new jersey to the list then i am going to delete ohio and michigan from the list myself. -- james florek is a douchebag
 * Did you even look at the suggestions you were given before? Anyway, the U.S. Census Bureau disagrees with you that Ohio and Michigan are not Midwestern states.  (WT-en) LtPowers 18:05, 11 March 2010 (EST)

Just curious: No Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas?
This entry has the only map I've found so far that doesn't include them. —The preceding comment was added by 64.89.178.117 (talk • contribs)

 * See Great Plains. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:28, 19 March 2012 (EDT)

Incorrect.
Where is North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, and Nebraska? All of these states are a part of the Midwest. The Great Plains itself is a sub-region of the Midwest. There is no reason NOT to include these four states in the Midwest.

From wikipedia.org: "The Midwestern United States as defined by the United States Census Bureau, is one of the four U.S. geographic regions.[1] The area is referred to as the Midwest throughout the United States.The region consists of 12 states in the north-central and north-eastern United States: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.

I will edit this page within the coming days to meet the correct definition

—The preceding comment was added by 75.39.143.38 (talk • contribs)
 * No, you won't. We've divided the United States by logical travel regions, not according to U.S. Census definitions.  The Great Plains are a coherent travel region, and the fact that the census bureau includes it within the Midwest is irrelevant.  LtPowers (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

 * (edit conflict) The existing regional breakdown reflects several years' worth of discussions and can be found in the existing archives of Talk:United States of America. While proposed changes are welcome, it took a long time to come to an agreement on the current regional breakdown and any changes will need a broad consensus.  If you feel strongly about this issue then Talk:United States of America is probably the place to start a discussion. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Move to Midwest?
The disambiguation page Midwest points to two other articles. Mid West (Western Australia) is spelled differently, and is an unsignificant region with around 50,000 inhabitants. Midwest (Wyoming) does not exist yet. Most readers who look for the word Midwest can be assumed to look for this article. The other places can have a top link. /Yvwv (talk) 08:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree This is definitely the primary meaning that others anticipate when searching "Midwest". —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. "Midwest (United States of America)" is awfully letter-heavy; surely even if "Midwest" were found to be ambiguous, "Midwest (USA)" would be just fine. QuartierLatin1968 (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I really don't know about other uses of "Midwest". If they're really as few and relatively unimportant as Yvwv states above, the proposal is sensible. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Four in favor, zero against. Case settled? /Yvwv (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I would think so... QuartierLatin1968 (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Kansas City Montage.jpg

title: Talk:Midwest