Talk:Europe

Previous Discussions:

• Archive 1 (pre-2004):
  Whether Europe is really a continent, Earliest use of "Europa" to mean Europe, Whether Armenia and Georgia are in Europe, The Baltic states, Notes for rewriting, Breaking the article into themed sub-articles, The map, Deleted statements, Whether Oceania is really a continent, There is no... node eight!

• Archive 2 (2004 to 18 Feb 2005):
  The Regions (Updated), Definition of "Northern Europe", Status of the Channel Islands, Extent/Map, The starry flag, The Middle Ages, the Dark Ages and Medieval times, Which countries are in Europe?, Political Nations of Europe, Map of Europe, Links, Caucasus and Transcaucasus, FYR Macedonia's name, Independent "Countries", A geographical definition of Europe, Etymology of "Europa", related discussion about the list of countries, or the Emba River in other definitions, Calculate european and non-european areas of cross-continent countries, independent states, east boundaries, Whether Europe is really a continent, regions map, Greenland
• Archive 3 (18 Feb 2005 > 13 November 2006 )
• Archive 4 (13 November 2006 > 1 December 2006)
• Archive 5 (2007)
• Archive 6 (19 December 2007 > 9 July 2008)

Istanbul - europe's largest city?

to follow the logic of various arguements about the trans-continental status of various countries, how do we measure Istanbul? Is the european part bigger than moscow or london?Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, that was added there by indef blocked User:Izmir lee (as his sockpuppet Aegean Boy). He was blocked for consistent edit-warring for relentlessly pushing the POV that "Turkey is European and ONLY European". As for Istanbul, I am split on the issue, however, I do get the impression that Moscow is larger and is therefore Europe's largest city, with Istanbul possibly 2nd, 3rd, or 4th (depending on the size of Paris and London and whether we include only the strictly European part or the whole thing. --Tsourkpk (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it starts to get into the issue of what is a city's size. How far out can suburbs extend and still be part of the same city? In the US, many cities have suburbs that are themselves officially cities, although in some other countries suburbs of that size and status would be small towns. So before, say, London and Moscow can be compared, the "definition" of city must first be made.
In London, with which I am the most familiar, it could be said to be the area with London as the postal designation, or the area inside the M25 periphery motorway. Or it could be said to be the areas that are part of the political London.
Two examples are:
1) Enfield "in" North London. It is inside the M25 periphery motorway, and is politically a London district (borough), part of the old GLC, now GLA, but its postal address is Enfield, Middlesex - with no mention of London at all.
and 2) Watford - a geographically similar distance to London, similarly inside the M25, but not politically or postally part of London. Watford actually has better transport links (road, metro, train) to central London than Enfield does!
Similarly, of London's five airports (Heathrow, Gatwick, City, Stanstead, and Luton, only 1 is in the centre of London (City), and only one more is inside the peripheral motorway (Heathrow).
I am sure a similar problem of definition applies to many cities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 04:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Trying to pin down a city's size is another intractable problem. It's essentially trying to draw a discrete boundary through a continuum. There are several things we can try. One is city limits, metro area, or larger urban zone. There are several articles that try to deal with this:

1) Larger Urban Zone

2) Largest cities of the European Union by population within city limits

3) Largest European cities and metropolitan areas

4) Largest urban areas of the European Union

My own personal feeling is to go with urban agglomeration or LUZ. From most of what I've seen in wikipedia and elsewhere, Moscow seems consistently to be ranked #1. --Tsourkpk (talk) 05:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem with using continous urban development is that London has a politically created artificial break around it "the Green Belt", which not all other cities share. the economic activity of london is therefore much more dependent on citizens living just outside that artificial barrier than in a similar city without that barrier.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 06:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point, but I don't know what to tell you. Different cities use different definitions. Like I said, this is a largely intractable problem. Should we use metro area instead? --Tsourkpk (talk) 06:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Even using some of the suggested link above give a variation of c. 4 million people in the population of london. Not exactly a very precise comparison!Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 06:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Take the average of a bunch of different estimates then? --Tsourkpk (talk) 06:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Moscow and London are both very big and very european. Hard to measure london's population - the UK doesn't have an official ID/citizenship register, and the voter's list doesn't include foreigners (or people under 16/17) and the last census was 7 years ago, and that doesn't include illegal immigrants, and people who are on the margins of sociey (through choice or circumstance). A good example is Slough where the council said they had many times more Polish migrants in their town than the official total (the council said their figure was based on people accessing services such as education etc.)

the UK does not, oddly perhaps, keep a list of who has left the country, so even if evryone was documented entering (and they are not) it would be difficult to know how many returned overseas, and how many stayed on in an unofficial capacity. As a major cosmopolitan city, and a good source of employment, a lot of migrants to the country live in and around London. So you see the problem. So it is hard to say how big london is, let alone compare it with moscow, which no doubt has some similar and some differeing problems when trying to define its size.
The Slough page has a link on it to a TV documentary describing the problems with UK popultaion estimates.
And every time a minister makes a statement in the Parliament here about population, immigration, etc., it seems that statement has to be updated to allow for something not counted, or the vagaries of the estimates. Not very well organised for a so-called "developed" country, is it!
Perhaps best to include several cities as the largest (one source above list Istanbul, if the asian bit counts) and put in copious footnotes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 06:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I would try to look at as many lists as possible and take the average. That would minimize error. --Tsourkpk (talk) 06:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Remember that Green belt round London. And the point about the population stats is they are all guesses based on partial data - even the official one from the UK. The register of births, which should contain everyone born in the UK, is not systematically cross referenced to the register of deaths. This has been a method of getting false passports for years. It has been tightened up, but it is neither completely, or systematically checked. The number of illegral immigrants in the UK has been estimated to be 500,000, but that figure could be out by a good few hundred thousand either way, and that is just the official estimates. No-one knows (officially) how many new-EU citizens (e.g. Poles, Czechs, etc) live and work in London - that's an official estimate as well - the UK counted many of them on the way in, but has no estimate for how many subsequently left the country. And there were certainly massive population flows post EU enlargement. Britain, after all, had one of the healthiest economies in the EU, so it is only natural that it would attract a large number of migrants. I suggest you watch that documentary to get a feel of the problem!
On the subject of city definition, there seems to be little or no agreement about what popultion density a city should have. One table shows Moscow larger than london, but at a lower population density. Perhaps city size should be adjusted for popultion density to reduce the differences in what counts as a suburb.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this a non-issue? I've never seen any table in which MOscow isn't the largest European city and Istanbul the second. JdeJ (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

well, one of the four linked suggested above as lists of city sizes lists Istanbul. The problem I have with London is that the figures seem to have wildly different bases for compilation - a variation of 4 million in a figure only 2 to 3 times that suggests VERY different methodologies, at best.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Ah, the Polish plumber problem. Don't Sweden and the UK also have slightly different laws, which make them more attractive as workplaces to new-EU citizens? I would love to find a Polish plumber here in France. That would solve the far more taxing French plumber problem. :-)Mathsci (talk) 07:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I had by bathroom fixed by a Lithuanian and a Russian ;) Did a good job too!Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Largest city means the most populous city. It is not about its size or area. "Istanbul is Europe's most populous city (the world's 3rd largest city proper and 21st largest urban area) and Turkey's cultural and financial center..." This is from Wikipedia's Istanbul article. According to Largest European cities and metropolitan areas, Istanbul ranks 1st in " Population of municipality " but Moscow ranks 1st in " Population of metropolitan area ". If we put them in order by their Population of municipality, Istanbul must be the most populous city but by their Population of metropolitan area, Moscow must be the largest city, Istanbul is the 2nd, ... --85.100.158.147 (talk) 08:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The question about what defines a city is part of the problem. Some editors clearly believe one thing, and some another. Has modern transport redefined the meaning of city? 200 years ago, a city was unlikely to be more than, say, 10 or 15 miles across (my opinion). Do suburbs count as a city? Is Istanbul really two cities, next to each other? Or what? Budapest is two cities, so what about Istanbul?Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 10:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Back to how the measurement is made. This organisation [1]has tried to remove the bias from the politically created gap (greenbelt) at the edge of London. they have a figure of 13,945,000 for London in 2001! That is already in front of Istanbul (add on population growth in the last 7 years, and suddenly you have a figure similar or greater than Moscow!). On another track, the figures quoted on Wikipedia for Metro area size are from "World Gazeteer". Anyone know what this is? Google didn't come up with much. The World Gazeteer website didn't seem to say anything about ownership (certainly not that I found - maybe i'm just daft!). So who produces it? A government? a University? an organisation/NGO? an Individual with a burning desire and a bit of time? What is the quality of their data? Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 10:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I found (with deeper digging) something more about the World Gazeteer site. Well, this link [2] suggests that it is doesn't really come up to scratch a source quality - it does not appear to be peer-reviewed, or by a known reputable organisation. Its data appears to be second and third hard, including user feedback.

That's what I think.
If my doubts are confirmed, then the Metro area listing for size is, at best, unreliable. So it would appear to contribute nothing to the biggest city (Moscow/Istanbul/London/Other) debate
What does everyone else think
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 10:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

As a possible way forward, perhaps I can repeat my previous comment:
Perhaps best to include several cities as the largest (one source above list Istanbul, if the asian bit counts) and put in copious footnotes! Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Hey , Hey. Here is a list[2] that says London is bigger than Moscow or Istanbul. Told you so.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 23:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, "hey, hey, hey" is that site some sort of official document that mandates us to model the entire list over it? Wikipedia should not be merely a copy of something.--Satt 2 (talk) 23:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess you should read the stuff above. The view of most sources is that it is Moscow, Istanbul, London, with one site having Istanbul, Moscow, London, and one site having London, Moscow, Istanbul. But there is no common definition of what a city is. One site lists "core city" and suburbs in different columns - then London only get 2 million. So there you are, depending on definition London is c.2 million to c.14 million in size. So there is no "right" figure (quite apart from the population migration point that I raised earlier.
PLUS the Wikipedia list is based on a questionable source (see notes above). Which is why, oddly enough, I have already suggested a list with footnotes to accomodate the different sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 09:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Encarta" :
  • {{cite web|last=Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia 2007|title="Europe"|url=http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570768/Europe.html|accessdate=2007-12-27}}
  • {{cite web|last=Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2007|title="Europe"|url=http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570768/Europe.html|accessdate=2007-12-27}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Kazakhstan is listed in Europe and Asia?

I was just browsing around and noticed that Kazakhstan is listed in Europe and Asia pages. I understand that Kazakhstan is on both Continents, but why was it chosen to be this way and by who, and when? Can someone elaborate on this. --Japreja (talk) 03:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"Why was it chosen to be this way"? Well, I guess because the country is on both continents, as you have already figured. Who implemented this when? I can't answer you , but you can look that up yourself using the article history. Good luck! Tomeasy _{T C} 09:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

High res map for prints

The current map of Europe is rather annoying. The problem with it is that you can not print it because the links aren't saved. It would be cool if there was a High-Res map of Europe that allowed you to print stuff from it. Not sure how to create a new topic though. It would be cool if somebody could make another high res map that you could print. 161.97.199.36 (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope you like the header I invented, because I am not 100% sure I understand what you want. Tomeasy _{T C} 07:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo?

Kosovo is NOT a state. it is an autonomous region of Serbia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.147.174 (talk) 14:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The majority of Europe disagrees with you Ijanderson (talk) 13:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the majority of the world agrees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.168.205 (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Also the UN and the internacional laws agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.239.217.32 (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Then put Abkhazia and S.O., in the meantime, I'm putting a POV tag --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure you put the tag on the right section? You put it on the Definition section, while apparently you are disputing the neutrality of the Political geography here. Tomeasy _{T C} 17:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's agree that this is a delicate question and it need thorough attention to solve it. Actually, it is part of the most ardently discussed topics on wikipedia: how do we appreciate independence of countries when disputed. Most apparent are locator maps and topical lists as the one here. Those of you who are interested to design a general guideline for these cases without having recent instances in mind (or on agenda) should feel invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Locator maps and de facto independence. There and here we should try to come up with an objective rule that then defines naturally which countries fall into the list and which ones do not. Let's leave behind, for the time being, the concrete countries and discuss on the basis of objective criteria.

I will give it a first shot; here's my proposition:
Include all countries on the list that are (i) de facto sovereign and (ii) recognized by at least one universally recognized state. Tomeasy _{T C} 17:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Counter-proposal: Include all countries on the list that are (I) de facto sovereign and (II) recognized by at least more than one universally recognized state.--MaGioZal (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. In the case at hand it would not make a difference anyway. Can you explain why a minimum of two makes sense to you, while one is not enough? To me, this appears to be the weak point in your proposal. People will start asking why two? It seems arbitrary. Tomeasy _{T C} 19:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tom's proposal, it sounds fair. De facto situation is important. I would opt to show even North Cyprus. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did not think of N. Cyprus at all, but you are right it just follows from my proposition. Let's leave the exapmles out for the time being and see how we can find a truly NPOV ruling.

The reason I formulated (ii) along 1 recognized country is that this constitutes sufficiently the situation where different points of view exist. In this situation, I propose that our list should reflect both points of view, i.e., not decide to overrule one of the two. In contrast to this, Magiozal's proposal seems arbitrary to me: why 2, why not 3 or 4...? With respect to my proposal, the number 1 is not arbitrary. I hope this has been made clear.

Still, very different proposals might be possible... Tomeasy _{T C} 12:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The question is do you recognize only UN-recognized states, or any "state" that has de facto control over its own territory, with its own legislature etc. ? Kosovo relaly is not more a state than Abkhazia or South Ossetia or North Cyprus or Nagorno-Karabakh. Then we can get into issues like Transnistria, or Mount Athos. It would be best if only states that are internationally-recognized UN members be included. Otherwise this discussion will still be going on ages from now, and may very well turn nasty. 41.245.165.40 (talk) 08:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

UN membership is also just one point of view. A look at the history of this organization reveals that very often well-established states were not members, like e.g. Switzerland, and still the Vatican is not a member. Should the latter be removed from our list? It enjoys universal recognition, so I would say include. I hope you agree. With respect to your examples my proposal is quite clear: Mt. Athos, Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabagh are not recognized by any universally recognized state - hence should be excluded. I understand you would like to do so as well. You claim Kosovo is no different than Abkhazia. My proposal would include both. So, I wonder what's your problem with my proposal and where are the advantages of relating everything to a single organization and its POV, the UN? Tomeasy _{T C} 09:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that only UN members should be included in order to avoid any unnecessary POV disputes. --ish_warsaw (talk) 22:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

But this article is not about the United Nations — it’s about Europe. And the fact is that the absolute majority of the independent countries (which also holds the majority of the population) of all Europe recognize Kosovo as an independent nation and have (or intend to have) ties with it — a situation very different from Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh and Northern Cyprus.

And about UN admission, let’s remember that until 2005 Switzerland was not an UN member — but no one has said that Switzerland was not a nation until 2005.--MaGioZal (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

How can you state that the majority of the European population recognizes Kosovo? Also, Switzerland was recognized by its previous ruler(Austria) when it declared independence. That is why Crotia and Slovenia are states, because the previous regime recognized them. Under UN (them again) law all states' territorial boundaries as of the formation of the UN are indivisible, unless the state themselves recognizes the new boundaries. It doesn't matter who recognizes Kosovo, unless Belgrade recognizes an independent nation called "Kosovo", it is part of Serbia. Period. Likewise, using the "this is about Europe" argument falls flat. Israel is in the Middle East, but the absolute majority of Middle Eastern governments and people do no recognize it. So should we remove that from that section. The facts are these:

1)Under UN law, Kosovo is part of Serbia.

2)The overwhelming majority of governments of universally recognized sovereign states do not recognize Kosovo as a state, but as part of Serbia.

3)You can not possibly claim to know what the majority population of Europe feels or thinks.

4)Unless Serbia recognized Kosovo as an independent state, Kosovo's "independence" is in vi9olation of just about every international law and agreement.

5)Including Kosovo in a list of European countries is factually inaccurate.

41.245.139.25 (talk) 12:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

How can you state that the majority of the European population recognizes Kosovo? Also, Switzerland was recognized by its previous ruler(Austria) when it declared independence. That is why Crotia and Slovenia are states, because the previous regime recognized them. Under UN (them again) law all states' territorial boundaries as of the formation of the UN are indivisible, unless the state themselves recognizes the new boundaries. It doesn't matter who recognizes Kosovo, unless Belgrade recognizes an independent nation called "Kosovo", it is part of Serbia. Period.

To say that Kosovo will only be a country when and if only Belgrade government Serbia recognizes it (even if Kosovo would become member of UN) it’s an absolutely Serb nationalist POV — otherwise, the rule could be applied to Israel, and it would disappear from all the world maps and be substituted by “(occupied) Palestine”. Or, in the case of Falklands as “(occupied) Malvinas”. Or, in the 70’s, Bangladesh as “(occuped) East Pakistan”, and so on.

And to say Switzerland was recognized as a country just because Austria acknowledged its independence is not true, since Austria as a country just came into existence many years after Switzerland — which was a former part of the old Holy Roman Empire (which included the current territories of Germany, Czech Republic, Austria and Slovenia), not Austria — became independent.--201.52.216.113 (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, as you obviously know, but are likely just being trollish now, the Vienna regime which had had control of Switzerland recognized it as a state, and thus Switzerland became an official country. The Vienna state was obviously not the exact same thing as the modern state of Austria, but that is irrelevant. Likewise I used the Israel example and now you are trying to use it to state your rather feeble point? All you have done so far is make outrageous claims. I have stated my point(which various other people here agree with, read discussion history) that an exact specification needs to be made when listing countries as to what constitutes a country. The proposed designation is a UN member state. While that is not perfect it does remove back-and-forth edit warring and POVing. Likewise at least a majority recognition could be used instead. Kosovo is not a UN member state, and the overwhelming majority of universally-recognized states do not recognize any country called the "republic of Kosovo". Your reason for its inclusion seems to be "because I say so". If that is the case then why not also include North Cyprus, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabakh, Chechneya? Apart from bluster, could you set out what guidelines you would propose for what should be included, what you feel the valid criteria should be etc? And please do not just cut-and-paste or echo back what I have just said. 41.245.155.32 (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your (IP 41...) approach of seeking a clear cut solution that will apply for all cases without looking at the specific countries involved. I am convinced that Wikipedia needs a clear guideline for this, because many talk pages have been filled with these disputes and will be filled in the future, if we cannot come up with a logical guideline that can be respected by everyone. Even though, I do not agree with the model you have in mind, i.e., the parent country needs to recognize, I think your way of approaching this case can be helpful in building a strong consensus. There is a thread on the Wikiproject Countries that deals with this question. Perhaps, you would like to create an account and join us there. Creating an account takes less time than you took for writing your above comment and you will really not be spamed or anything. So, do not waste time and join the project. Tomeasy _{T C} 18:01, 18 October 2008 (U

Kosovo is not a member of international organizations like the UN, IMF, the World Bank, the Olympic organization, FIFA, I mean you name it. It is not a member of the UN not because like Switzerland they choose not to be because of their neutrality but because they do not have sufficient support to become a member. A new resolution of the UN Security Council is needed to grant independence to Kosovo. Until then it is formally according to resolution 1244 of the UN Security Council a part of Serbia. Tomeasy, your suggestion of: Include all countries on the list that are (i) de facto sovereign and (ii) recognized by at least one universally recognized state. is not adequate. For example, Bosnia is not de facto sovereign because the final decision on issues there is made by the High Representative and EU special representative. Northern Cyprus is de facto more sovereign than Bosnia but does that mean that Bosnia should be removed from the map because it does not fit one of the two criteria? Kosovo is also under similar international authority and furthermore its political independence has not been formalized within any international organizations. If you claim that this is a European issue and that most EU countries have recognized Kosovo you are right but on the other hand Kosovo is neither a member of the Council of Europe nor of the OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe). Why is that do you think? You can not form a set of criteria for determining what a country is because each individual case is different. In the case of Kosovo I propose that it be drawn into the map once the UN Security Council adopts a new resolution stating its independence. Don't worry, you probably won't have to wait more than two years anyway, but putting it on the map now makes Wikipedia a bit superficial. TripioTripio (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Please sign your comments with ~~~~. Are you IP 41... ?

IMO, Bosnia is sovereign. You are of course right that the term sovereign might be contentious. Many people claimed that West Germany was not sovereign until 1990. OK, I see the point, but that is not what I mean.

International organizations like FIFA etc. are better left out of this completely. How would you ever come to a stable solution, if you took countless organizations into account? Where would you start and where would you stop?

I never claimed it to be a European issue. Just in contrast, my position is not to look at who are the supporters and who are the opponents of a declared independence. I would like to see a guideline being established that works without.

You can not form a set of criteria for determining what a country is because each individual case is different. I do not share your fatalism. If you do not want to work on this, I can't help it, but it would certainly be worth the effort. Your case to case proposition endorses the engagement of stupid POV fighters, placeing stupid arguments, never listing to their opponents. I am looking for an academic discussion on this, with a simple clear cut guideline. I have seen that anything else is a waste of energy. Tomeasy _{T C} 10:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

"I am looking for an academic discussion on this, with a simple clear cut guideline." The academic problem is that you have two opposing and at times contradicting concepts of international law (which is a living organism that is not perfect)which are the guarantee of sovereignty and territorial integrity of countries (in this case Serbia's argument), and the rights of people to self-determination (Kosovo Albanians argument). The problem in the case of Kosovo is that regardless if it goes one way or the other one of the two principles will be violated and one side will be damaged. If there are no "simple clear cut" guidelines for determining the sovereignty of a territory in international politics, how can you expect them to be defined on Wikipedia? The push to recognize Kosovo with a UN Security Council resolution is not my idea. It is the preferred mechanism of countries that already have recognized the independence of Kosovo. The International Court of Justice is to determine the legality of the unilateral declaration of independence by the ruling majority in Kosovo. This court will come to a verdict taking into account International Law, the situation on the ground, history of the region, etc. Predictions are that the verdict will be reached by this time next year. Lets see what the wise gray people in the court will conclude. The decision of this court is not binding, and each individual country will decide weather to respect their decision or not which means that it will have no practical effect (the USA, UK, France, will certainly not disgrace themselves by changing their position on the matter). The circumstances there today are a product of violence that came from both sides. To draw Kosovo into the map today is a presumption and a political opinion but far from a definite (however likely it may be) reality. It is interesting that you have already drawn Kosovo into the map while you are still searching for "a simple clear cut guideline". I am very interested to hear according to which guidelines have you decided to do so? TripioTripio (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you the IP or not?

The academic problem is that you have two opposing and at times contradicting concepts of international law And that is why I propose not to attempt judging whether a country has the right to claim independence or not. We are absolutely no institution to do so. This would be WP:OR and endorse POV discussions.

The circumstances there today are a product of violence that came from both sides. This is exactly what I mean. It's an irrelevant statement and doesn't bring us any further. You are only attracting people from either side to state their irrelevant opinion on your claim. These opinions are then even less constructive with respect to designing a stable solution.

The International Court of Justice is to determine the legality of the unilateral declaration That may be. However, I agree with you that either Russia and Serbia or Kosovo and the US will give a damn about such a decision. We will remain with the situation that there are different viewpoints. My rationale would be to reflect all viewpoints, if there are different viewpoints and abandon discussions as to which viewpoint is more justified.

It is interesting that you have already drawn Kosovo into the map What are you talking about? I did not draw it in any map. I do not even know which map you mean... Tomeasy _{T C} 13:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no I am not the IP 41... "What are you talking about? I did not draw it in any map. I do not even know which map you mean." Take it easy man, no need to be aggressive, the map which is at the top of the page, the political map of Europe (below the heading "this page is disputed..."), take a look. "My rationale would be to reflect all viewpoints, if there are different viewpoints and abandon discussions as to which viewpoint is more justified." Sounds good to me, but if I understand your point correctly, then the page will have to contain two maps of Europe. Tripio (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

How do you come to the idea that I drew the map. If you accuse people of deeds they have no connection to, you will likely not make them happy. Perhaps you should not take it too easy with making such claims.

In terms of maps you would actually need an enormous amount of maps to reflect every individual viewpoint, because Kosovo is by far not the only contentious entity. If you scan through the article there are many more maps, and most of them do not show Kosovo as a state. My idea about reflecting both viewpoints would mean (in terms of a map) to use a dashed border, for instance. Tomeasy _{T C} 14:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw that you answered to each and every comment on this page, not only in the Kosovo topic, so I assumed that you are a moderator of this page and therefore that you drew or imported the maps. I extend my sincerest apologies because I see that you were very disturbed by my allegation. A dashed border is fine i suppose. It reflects the absurdity of the situation perfectly.Tripio (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Until then it is formally according to resolution 1244 of the UN Security Council a part of Serbia.

The UN Resolution 1244 never said, in any part, that “Kosovo is an inalienable part of Serbia, and forever will be” — this is just a delusion from the people wh still dreams about lost medieval battles. The resolution just stablished the parameter for NATO and UN military occupation of Kosovo, saying that the province was a part of a country that does not exist anymore — Yugoslavia. And even one of the former halves of Yugoslavia — Montenegro — now recognizes Kosovo as a nation. 1244 is closer to Badinter than to SANU.

Anyway, a compromise solution could be drawing dashed lines in the borders of Kosovo, North Cyprus, Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh, putting textual links on them. And it should stop there — I mean, it should not include stuff like Sealand or Republika Srpska... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.216.113 (talk) 05:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. But as it stands now, it makes it look as though Kosovo is in fact a fully recognized nation state, whereas no mention of Abkhazia et al exists. Whoever has added the present map is clearly going on POV. Either Kosovo should be removed entirely, or South Ossetia, Abkhazia, North Cyprus and Nagorno-Karabakh be added. 41.245.164.13 (talk) 08:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree that all those cases are the same and should be treated as such. Transnistria, for example, is not even recognized by a single universally recognized state. The question as to how independent and recognized are states is a question that hinges on the reaction from other states. So, it cannot be the same if a country partly enjoys recognition or not. Tomeasy _{T C} 16:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

But why is Kosovo listed as being a European state, and included on the map, when none of the others even have dotted lines? This is POV and factually wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.187.61 (talk) 11:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect map

The "Europe according to the EU" map shows Gibraltar as "other European" as opposed to European Union. Gibraltar joined the European Union alongside the United Kingdom of which Gibraltar is a territory. Could someone please correct this. --SJ3000 (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Very well observed, you are of course right. Let's see how will find the time to fix this micro bug. Tomeasy _{T C} 21:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Is Turkey a part of Europe?

Politically, maybe as a small part of Turkey is found in Europe so one can argue that the entire country should be treated as a European one. Geographically, no except for that little area found in Europe. The Asian part of Turkey IMO is not a part of Europe as it is not located within the European continent.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there someting in the article that you do not like? What would you like to change? Tomeasy _{T C} 07:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This article needs a big, fat POV-disputed tag at the top. Are the authors not aware that there is no consensus as to what Europe is? Why do they just make the assumption that it is X, when the entire article could be rewritten from the point of view that Europe is Y or even Z? Are we talking about Europe culturally? Historically? Linguistically? Demographically? Religiously? Geographically?--Phalangst (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Try to be constructive. What would you do better, so that the big, fat POV tag was not necessary? Tomeasy _{T C} 13:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Constructive? I am being constructive. This article is written entirely from the point of view that Europe is something many people feel it is not. So, if you want to leave it as it is, fine...simply put a POV tag at the top. If not, we have problems.

The majority of Europe's native population disagrees with your assessment...why is the rest of the Middle East, which has more to do with Turkey geographically, culturally and historically, not part of this "European" entity then, too? Quite frankly, if Turkey becomes a part of Europe, over time, Europe will become exactly what it is not: the Middle East. For nearly six hundred years, Turkey was at the heart of an Ottoman Empire that expanded into the entranceway to Europe, but also, and in particular, in the direction to the Middle East and North Africa. This is what makes Turkey different from Europe.

I don't like the EU, and most of Europe doesn't like the EU, either. Anyone who feels so passionate about this anti-democratic,anti-European, multi-culti-social-capitalist monster as to write it in their profile as you did...

....should not be deciding what Europe means for the rest of us, but that is just my opinion.--Phalangst (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop lifting this to a personal level. As long as you are just putting your opinions mixed with an aggressive tone, I see no point to continue discussion with you. This talk page is in place to discuss improvements to the article. So, last request: Make clear propositions as to how to improve the article! If you are just here to voice your hate about the EU, Turkey, me or Wikipedia, then you are in the wrong place. Tomeasy _{T C} 14:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I already explained what is wrong: the article is an opinion. You made no rebuttal whatsoever aside from dismissing everything I said as an "opinion". Why dismiss my opinion when the article itself is only an opinion? A European country should be written in as "European" only if there is no controversy that it is, in fact, European. I have an aggressive tone because I made a suggestion and you simply avoided the issue by telling me to say exactly "how" to improve the article. I have little doubt in my mind that this was nothing more than an attempt to get me so annoyed that I scatter off. Again, I ask you: unblock the article so I can eliminate the POV. Who made you the guardian of this page? UNBLOCK IT NOW!!! - Phalangst

Who made you the king of wikipedia? Knippschild (talk) 09:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking to me, or to Tomeasy? For starters, my first complaint is that Istanbul is not in Europe, and therefore cannot be considered a European city. In fact, someone only recently edited | 1 the Istanbul page and put in the detail that it was a European city. Sorry for what you claim to be a "personal attack", Tomeasy...but remember, I'm not the one who loudly proclaimed my beliefs on Wikipedia for all to see, thus giving others a clue as to why this article says what it does. I repeat: it is a known fact that the European peoples do not support the ideas that this page reflects. However, I do agree that your ideas are the "spirit of the age"...well, congratulations - Phalangst

If you ask me to unblock the article - you ask the wrong person. I did not block it, I am not willing to unblock it, and most importantly I cannot unblock it. Anyway, you should be able to edit it and principally you are invited to do so. If understand your intentions correctly, your changes are likely to be controversial so it would be better to discuss the up front here. I am still missing a concrete proposal of what you want to change. Shall Turkey be removed from the list? Is that what you want?

In any case before you engage deeper into such matters you should ask yourself, whether you are in the mood to have a respectful discussion with other people, open for their arguments, and looking forward to improve the article in a common effort, rather than battling your opinion through. Honestly, I have to say that from the attitude you displayed so far it seems unlikely that people (who are not sharing your opinion) will appreciate discussing with you. That is an important point, because we all want to enjoy our time here, especially when opinions diverge it is necessary to remain respectful. To copy parts of my user page to this talk page, was not only inappropriate in content—you should be aware that actions like this also set the climate of a discussion in a very negative way. So please reconsider your approach towards people on Wikipedia.

When signing your comments, just do ~~~~. It saves you time and provides more information. Tomeasy _{T C} 15:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, and again I apologize, but I really am getting tired of seeing the left-wing/Islamification-aiding POV in every wake of life and I think it is bad for Wikipedia to bill itself as the encyclopedia anyone can edit when this is, in fact, not true. First and foremost, the reference to Istanbul being the largest city in Europe must go. To the people who argue the opposite: have you ever been to Istanbul? What is it about Istanbul that makes it thoroughly European? There is nothing European about Istanbul. We draw a line through Russia and say half of that country is not "Europe" - which I would agree with - but Istanbul's claim to being "European" hinges on the fact that it borders a narrow strip that connects to Europe. You might as well call North Africa and the Middle East "Europe" then, as only a small body of water, the Mediterranean, divides these regions from what we undisputably would call Europe. Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco....I don't see anyone trying to argue that they are "European", at least not yet.-- Phalangst 15:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between Istanbul and Morocco and Tunesia. The most popular border between Europe and Asia is the Bosporus and Istanbul lies on both side. The Mediterranean is the most popular border between Europe and Africa and bot, Tunesia and Morocco, lie completely on one (the African) side. Tomeasy _{T C} 16:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The thrace region in which istanbul is apart of the thrace region is a part of europe period a line is drawn though turkey just as its drawn through russia not all of turkey is in europe--Wikiscribe (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no. Only a tiny portion of Northern Turkey is officialy considered a part of Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.33.174.133 (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well look on the map and tell me what percentage of Turkey that is. Maybe you can find out exactly? I wouldn't guess it to be over 5%, maybe 2-3% at the most. Still, let's say it is 5%. Who is to say this 5% should even be considered Europe if it is infact a part of Turkey, a state that is, upwards to 95%, a part of the Middle East? What I mean by that is: is there even one other country where a ridiculously small portion of its territory is said to fall within the realm of one continent and that is looked at as reason enough to say it is not completely part of another? -Phalangst

By the same logic that describes Turkey as part of Europe, then France is a Pacific nation (it has some small islands in the Pacific Ocean) and Britain is a South Atlantic country due to the Falkland Islands and South Georgia. In fact, the real claim that Turkey has to be European is based not in common sense but in political advantage and prestige. - Dughall