Talk:Europe: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 06:00, 27 May 2009

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Europe article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Europe was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 26, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
March 5, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former good article nominee

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Geography High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography

High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Geography To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations
Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles.
Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention
Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions
Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country
Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes
Map : See Wikipedia requested maps
Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability
Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places
Stubs : See Geography stubs

Vital Articles

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Vital Articles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of vital articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and work together to increase the quality of Wikipedia's essential articles.Vital ArticlesWikipedia:WikiProject Vital ArticlesTemplate:WikiProject Vital ArticlesVital Articles

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!

Etymology

89.240.13.175 (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)The name comes from Lithuanian-Sarmatian language meaning the land surrounded by big uncalm sees ('juro-pa' - this one it is pronounced the same as europa, or 'pa-jure' - most used word in todays Lithuanian vocabulary). How many things you just do not know about Lithuania...moreover her three suns are Sar-peda (Sar- means the same as Sar- in Sar-mata - to guard, to defend...and mata is a mother, while peda means a feet - or just follow the footsteps of your ancestors) and Radimantas (today in Lithuania there are thousands of people bearing the same name; this name means to find the tresures - 'rado' to find and 'manta' the belongings or treasures) and finaly Minos was even the only king of Lithuania (Min-daugas) in 13th century AD. This name means the thoughtfull or thinking or very clever one, and 'daug' means 'a lot'. Moreover, Crete means the land who is shaking (Kreta in Lithuanian language (without any changes in the pronounciation) means the shaking land...'kratyti' means 'to shake')...89.240.13.175 (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got sources for any of this? Jamrifis (talk) 10:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EU = the political Europe?

I'm not much into editing wikipedia, and I may not know exactly how to do this right, so I apologize if this discussion should be taken elsewhere. However, this statement in the article is plainly absurd and should be fixed: "Politically, Europe comprises those countries in the European Union, but may at times be used formally or more casually to refer to both the EU together with other non-EU countries e.g. the Council of Europe has 47 member countries and includes the 27 countries which are part of the EU."
I don't know anyone who would claim that Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and Liechtenstein are not European countries in accordance with a political definition. Besides, the definition would be incredibly weak prior to the 15+2 new countries joined after 2000. Would anyone seriously claim that Poland was not a European country prior to 2000 when the EU clearly targettet it as such? There is no reason at all to stick to that definition.
I am of course aware that many non-Europeans would perhaps confuse the two, but my take is that the "Europe = EU" statement is a casual definition that is politically wrong. I'd argue that any political definition should be somewhat self-imposed. Thus, membership of the Council Of Europe could serve as a very good way to identify the political Europe. It fails by excluding Belarus, yet a definition that could solve this is: "Any country that is a member of the European Council or is landlocked within the Council is a European country." Another suggestion is to include every country that has negotiated with the EU for membership. --84.215.120.152 (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did well to post this here. Your concern relates to the content of the Europe article and this is the talk page to the article. All articles have their individual talk pages.

The formulation is really bad, and I agree we should change it. However, I am not completely on your side. At this moment, I would write something like "Politically, the term Europe is sometimes used to refer to the EU." Newspapers do this quite regularly, so a source for this misconception would be easy to find. On the other hand, nobody using it this way is trying to say that non-EU countries are non-European countries. To give you an example: When, in the current (or better eternal :) Israel-Palestine-Gaza-whatever conflict, commentators request a stronger involvement of Europe, they mean the EU and not the summation of all countries on this continent. However, they do know very well that Switzerland is not a member state of the EU, and they know just as well that Switzerland is in Europe. It's a colloquial use of the term that often occurs in the international debate.

In the end of your comment, you try to define European countries through membership in an organization. I admit that it was probably the bad formulation you quoted that brought you onto this track. I would warn you doing so. This is next to impossible. Here, at Wikipedia we will probably never be able to define who's in and who's out. This is controversial, please skim through the talk page history of this article. You will find many pages dealing those issues.

To give you an example the Council of Europe (CoE) does not include Kazachstan, yet many people say it has parts in Europe. On the other hand, you would fail adding a specifier as in the case of Belarus, because many people strongly believe that Kazachstan has no parts in Europe. Moreover, we have several countries, which to some are countries and to others are not. Another example, the EU and CoE include Cyprus, and yet there are people who are absolutely certain that Cyprus is not part of Europe. Etc...

Just so you know, 10+2 new countries joined the EU after 2000. Tomeasy_{T C} 19:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer (I messed up the 10+2 I see). I do agree that in a political context, it may be used to refer to the EU by the media and foreign leaders. I'm not entirely convinced that a "Europe needs to act now" statement would really point to EU in its entity, however, as I feel they're commonly pointing to the 3-5 bigger members (excluding Russia), and I mean this in particular in foreign policy issues. This is perhaps trivial, however and your suggestion is good and it's close to something I was trying to suggest. The definition issue I will leave behind since it's dealt with in the article to some extent. I'd just note that Belarus and Kazakhstan has been past members (or special guests) or told they can join the CoE if they meet certain standards (here the CoE seems to disagree with the EU about what "Europe" is). My point wasn't to discuss this, however, but rather that the wording has to be changed to SOMETHING ELSE. If the EU+CoE issue is to be kept as part of the definition of the political Europe, it might as well include those ongoing applicant countries. --84.215.120.152 (talk), 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I purposely did not include the CoE and the counting of countries in my proposed formulation, because I would drop it altogether. I think we are quite close with what should be said about this sloppy usage of the term Europe. So why don't you just give it a shot and change the wording of the article. I will copy edit, if I think I can improve, and so on. In the worst case, we meet here again, but I think that won't be necessary.

BTW, it is very helpful, in many respect, to sign comments. You do so by typing four tildes (i.e., ~~~~) at the end of your comment. thanks. Tomeasy_{T C} 22:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New background map for labelled map

I'm replotting the labels on the labelled map here. Should we use the new map (it is also rendered to 700px wide, similar to the old map)? If so, can somebody please help me with the extremely monotonous work of replotting? - SSJ ☎ 04:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the map you are preparing is better and would eventually support its introduction to the article. I am also willing to help you with the labels. However, I see the improvement as very minor, because the new map has also some disadvantages.

The old map uses certainly a weird projection. However, as a result of this, the countries show up much larger for the same px-width, which helps very much when placing the labels, because the map is anyway very busy. This is supported by the more pragmatic frame (zoom, cut-off) chosen by the old map. The new map wastes loads of space extending up to Labrador in the west and up to Svalbard in the north. I know that some might deem it necessary to show the Canary Islands as well as Franz Josef Land on a map of Europe. However, I am clearly advocating not to do so and to crop the map before we work on it.

Specifically, I propose to crop with only small margins (i) at the west coast of mainland Portugal and (ii) at the north coast of mainland Russia. Tomeasy_{T C} 11:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure there's enough space for the labels within national borders, in spite of the spacious zoom. E.g. the map in the EU article is probably even a bit tighter, even though that is cropped to only show the mainland. This article is about the geographical europe. The template is called "Europe and Sea". It's not just about locating countries. Therefore I think we should "spoil ourselves" by including remote islands that are also part of Europe. 700px is enough.- SSJ ☎ 15:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said yourself they are both 700px wide. I can see that the new map shows at least 20% more in east-west direction. Hence, it is tighter. How can you seriously claim this is not the case? Tha canary islands are geographically Africa, if you crop them you'll have 20% surface area for free. Tomeasy_{T C} 15:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that the new map isn't too tight at 700px. Template:European Union Labelled Map (blue) (which looks ok) is even tighter than what's the case with the new SVG map for this article. - SSJ ☎ 16:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the new map for ex-Yugoslavia, the most busy part of the map. I am not satisfied with the result, which I believe is not due to bad placements of the label from my side. It would be very helpful to zoom in and get lager areas. I hope you will take this advice. There is no justification to show the Atlantic up to Canada anyway. The map should show Europe and not the surrounding oceans. Tomeasy_{T C} 16:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I haven't seen the map for ex-Yoguslavia that you've edited and had a bad experience with. I've also contributed with a lot of labelled maps. Franz Josef Land happens to be a part of Europe. And as I've said, the map in a template called Europe and Sea, so I don't think it makes sense that you merely conclude that the map shouldn't show surrounding oceans. - SSJ ☎ 17:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstanding: I edited the ex-Yugoslavian states on the new map, the labeled map in your sandbox. Have a look at it.

I was not talking about Franz Josef Land in my last comments but the Canary Islands. I can imagine that your resistance to crop in the north is even higher than in the west ;-) Tomeasy_{T C} 18:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tomeasy here, the map needs to be cropped. There is no additional benefit to be gained by include the Canary Islands. Please keep in mind that French Guiana is just as much a part of France as the Canary Islands are a part of Spain, so if we want to include non-European parts of European countries, we'd need a world map. Cropping just west of Portugal and north of mainland Russia makes most sense.JdeJ (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accroding to File:Map of Europe (political).png this map, the Azores are part of Europe. So that's the bonus of having exactly the current crop; we show 100% of Europe's geographical area, without locator boxes.- SSJ ☎ 00:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This map was made by a another Wikipedian, cites no sources, and is now used by you as authoritative?

Did you find my edits (ex-Yugoslavia) in your sandbox? How would you interpret the result? Tomeasy_{T C} 01:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no reason to question the categorisation of the Azores as a part of geographical Europe. But of course we can examine further whether it is true. Yes I've seen your edits. My interpretation is that the coordinates can be tweaked even more, but that they look fairly alright now. - SSJ ☎ 01:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I miss the borderlines in this map, of all countries visible including the European countries. Its the same issue around the map on the EU article, where theres borders of none EU countries but no bordermarkings within the EU... :-) 83.108.234.37 (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably talking about the infobox maps, not the labelled map in this article. this is a more relevant debate. SSJ ☎ 16:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If people aren't interested in shaping a consensus here, I'll insert the new map. - SSJ ☎ 14:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I lost my hope that consensus could mean anything else than your initial position. Since you did not show any willingness to consider JdeJ's or my arguments to modify the frame of the map, you should not be surprised that people loose interest and will not grant your map consensus status. Tomeasy_{T C} 15:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last argument I made was that the current crop has the benefit of showing 100% of geographical Europe. And then we talked about whether the Azores are part of Europe. And then you left. Was I ignorant? I think I've given answers to the notion that "a waste of space" should be avoided. If you are genuinely interested in shaping a consensus on a talk page, you shouldn't just leave the discussion and a week later suddenly pop back up and claim that people are ignorant. - SSJ ☎ 16:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Yes, that was your last argument -- but also your first argument. That's why I feel there is not much progress in the discussion and that's also why I feel my arguments are not taken into account.

NB: If you want to call yourself ignorant, I can of course not stop you. Still, I would like to suggest to keep such strong words out of the discussion. They seldom help the process, and they are clearly not part of my vocabulary. Tomeasy_{T C} 17:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I have never said that I have 'my own consensus'; I said that I would interpret the lack of continued debate (and counter-arguments) as a default to 'be bold'. A lack of "willingness to consider..[other people's] arguments", I would say equals with 'ignorance'. I thought it looked like a small tirade. And that certainly doesn't "help the process". - SSJ ☎ 17:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you may be bold. As I already expressed in my first comment, I would support the introduction of the new map that you propose. I find it better than what we currently have. The fact that I would prefer more focus on the continent, does not change my initial statement, which I had made explicitly independent from my wish to crop the map. So please, once you are done with fiddling the labels, go ahead. Tomeasy_{T C} 18:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Largest cities

The list of largest cities in the infobox has grown over the past months beyond a reasonable extend. I have deleted all cities with less than 2 million people within city proper. Of course, this rule is open to discussion (I am convinced it is reasonable). It would be nice build up consensus (even if different to my proposal) that allows easy maintenance of this content in the future. Tomeasy_{T C} 15:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russia ??

[quote]Europe is the world's second-smallest continent by surface area, covering about 10,180,000 square kilometres (3,930,000 sq mi) or 2% of the Earth's surface and about 6.8% of its land area. Of Europe's approximately 50 states, Russia is the largest by both area and population, while the Vatican City is the smallest. Europe is the third most populous continent after Asia and Africa, with a population of 731 million or about 11% of the world's population; however, according to the United Nations (medium estimate), Europe's share may fall to about 7% in 2050.[/quote]

Since when is Russia and the total population part of Europe?

Problem with the Principal Map (at the top of the article)

My understanding is that the European continental plate includes most of Anatolia, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, a small chunk of northwestern Iran, and probably Cyprus too. Perhaps this is intended more as a cultural notion of what constitutes Europe (in which case, Cyprus should still be included, and perhaps Georgia and Armenia as well), but if so, I'm not sure that's really appropriate. Shouldn't the principal map of Europe, in the article on Europe, display what is, objectively, the actual European continent, not merely the vast portion of the continent which people customarily think of as being a part of it?

Personally, I don't like the idea of Turkey joining the EU either, so I can understand if someone perhaps felt inclined to leave Anatolia out, due to a tendency not to want to appear to be promoting the idea that Turkey is part of "Europe," as opposed to the geographical reality of plate tectonics. But franky, while I understand such an impulse, it simply doesn't reflect an adequately NPOV.

Or maybe this was just a simple error. I would fix it myself, but I don't actually know how to. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 09:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abkhazia and South Ossetia

Do these places merit inclusion? The only nation to recognize their existence is Russia. Bearing in mind that Europe is here being used with a much broader intent than 'EU', what should be done to emphasize their irregularity if they are to be included. Also, perhaps this needs to be contextualized within the situation of Russian aggression in the area, particularly its war in South Ossetia. ja fiswa imċappas bil-hara! (talk) 08:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And hence your POV is showing, "Russian aggression"? What about "Georgian aggression"? It's the same aggression (Serbian) which was used to recognise Kosovo. This is NOT the EU/NATOpedia, it is Wikipedia, and all POVs have to be covered. If Kosovo is included as an independent state, then so too will Abkhazia and South Ossetia; the key is that whenever Kosovo, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Taiwan are listed as independent states, then there should be a notation declaring that their independent status is disputed. The EU/NATO do not control Wikipedia, nor does their POV have precedence over other POV. --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They control their borders and run their own affairs for around 15 years or so. The number of countries that recognize them is immaterial as soon as there are some. Taking them out is akin to claiming that "you dont exist because I do not recognize your existence". Moreover, it is a list of regions including Gibraltar, Isle of Man, etc. What is wrong with having them as regions even if you dont recognize them as countires? DR2006kl (talk) 10:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed both belong on the list however a note about their status would be helpful along with that of Kosovo. Recognition is important, but i see no real difference between 1 country recognizing Abkhazia and South Ossetia and a couple of dozen recognizing Kosovo. Only entities with no international recognition at all do not belong on the list. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think your suggestion is the clearest and most neutral solution. Offliner (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't include the one country who acknowledges their existence to lend/detract weight to the claim. Only to reinforce the complex and propagandist angle this could take. With a suitable note this will obviously be avoided. Also, re. my 'pov' showing; if you believe it was a war of 'Georgian aggression' and are editing Wikipedia as such, the project may have been compromised by your edits, not my recourse to Talk:Europe. ja fiswa imċappas bil-hara! (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you add Abkhazia and South Ossetia to the list, you should add Northern Cyprus too. It's de facto independent more than 20 years. But we shouldn't add Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Northern Cyprus to the list. They are only recognized by one or two countries because of political obstinacies. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 14:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Flame, yes, we should be including Northern Cyprus, as well as the SADR and Palestine to such articles. They all have recognition from at least one other internationally recognised as per Montevideo Convention. If one other country recognises them as independent under the points of that Convention, then there is some degree of international recognition. Now, Turkish Flame, I know that you are a Kosovo supporter, but I wonder perhaps what editors who support the territorial integrity of Serbia would think about taking all others out, but leaving Kosovo. Perhaps this is not the right place to even discuss it, because this is going to affect more articles. --Russavia ^Dialogue 15:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They all have recognition from at least one other internationally recognised as per Montevideo Convention. This is certainly not the case. The Convention specifies that The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Kransky (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course correct, I attempted to over-simplify it. Basically, the extension of recognition to Taiwan, Kosovo, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, etc by relevant countries is the assertion of their opinion that Article 1 (a)-(d) are met, and is also exercised by god-knows how many other conventions and treaties in addition. That being said, it's not as simple as stating Kosovo is ok, and A & SO isn't, because that is anything but NPOV. The solution has already been in place, as you have acknowledged also, for some time, and it has worked in practice, and I don't think we should be allowing POV-pushing editors to poison WP:NPOV because of their own POV and biases. --Russavia ^Dialogue 22:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It is the purpose of Wikipedia to describe reality, not create it. And the current reality is that the international community considers Abkhazia and South Ossetia parts of Georgia. There are a few exceptions, true -- but to align by the exceptions rather than the rule would run contrary to the principle of due weight. Therefore, I must oppose inclusion. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 15:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the reality also is, is that the overwhelming majority of internationally recognised countries also do not recognise the sovereignty of Kosovo and Taiwan. We can not allow our own POV to cloud WP's NPOV. It's really that simple. --Russavia ^Dialogue 15:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest that people read the Montevideo Convention. Unless any of you are international lawyers, and have written on the subject of international law and the ability of countries to be recognised, and can cite this information, then arguing to keep one and not another is moot and is obvious POV. And even if you were, for every cite you could provide from an expert in international law, I could cite one which provides an opposing opinion. Ooops, there's the POV thing again. Hence, why I have stated my belief that if NPOV is to be achieved, there has to be an ALL OR NONE attitude taken, and dealt with uniformly across the board. --Russavia ^Dialogue 15:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, why is Aland (part of Finland), Svalbard (part of Norway) and Faroe Islands (a province of Denmark) listed? These are NOT countries in any sense of the word. To list these under "Political geography" but leave out Abkhazia and South Ossetia, it is perfectly clear the seriousness of the POV-pushing here. --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, Oppose as per Digwuren's reasons above and my own reservations. ja fiswa imċappas bil-hara! (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just had to reinsert comments which you removed. I'll assume it was an accident, but it if wasn't you should know this is highly frowned upon. --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I haven't edited the article again. And let me remind you, that nationalistically led editing is bound to slip into the meanest kinds of POV. ja fiswa imċappas bil-hara! (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You actually removed comments with this edit. Just be careful is all. In regards to "nationalist" editting, it doesn't come into play with myself. But it may with WP:DIGWUREN, who was banned for a year and only just recently returned, for POV-pushing and treating WP as a battleground. Which is exactly what he is doing here. He has no interest in reaching NPOV, it's all about the battle with him. In regards to your "own reservations" this is your own POV; and none of us are published (are we), so our POV doesn't matter. I would reconsider it, particularly given my comments below in the "Freedom house" section. Abkhazia and South Ossetia are part of the political geographic landscape of Europe, and anyone who denies this is only fooling themselves; it's the same with Kosovo, anyone who would deny that is also fooling themselves. The key is how to present both sides of the argument, without censoring information based upon our own POV, and apply that uniformly across the board. --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you meant an edit made after I posted here? And yes, my own reservations contribute to my participation in achieving consensus. NPOV is the priority; but you're fooling yourself if you don't believe you have demonstrated national bias in championing two puppet states. ja fiswa imċappas bil-hara! (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-uh. I'm not championing anything here. Otherwise, I would simply remove Kosovo, which is not recognised by a absolute majority of countries. --Russavia ^Dialogue 20:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored Abkhazia and SO but I think that the best way to solve this problem is to create an additional list after the main one where all the mostly nonrecognised countries would go (not only Abkhazia, Kosovo and South Ossetia, but also Transnistria and North Cyprus). This is how it has been done in the List of countries and there it turned out to be a rather stable solution. Alæxis_¿question? 20:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is the way to go. There is no way that A and S.O. can be portrayed without some sort of disclaimer. ja fiswa imċappas bil-hara! (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is basically what I have suggested, although not as a separate list, which could be a way to resolve it. We should also probably remove Aland, Svalbard and Faroe Islands, as they are not recognised, or even partially recognised, countries. Otherwise we need to list Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England, in addition to the United Kingdom, as well as include Federal subjects of Russia; particularly the Republics; in addition to various regions within various European countries which also have broad autonomy. And it is also a way so that ALL -- Abkhazia, South Ossetia AND Kosovo -- can be listed, but WITH a disclaimer, either way. --Russavia ^Dialogue 20:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pietru, Nicaragua and Transnistria recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and it looks like Belarus may recognize both of them soon. Bottom line is that they are both partially recognized and so is Kosovo. Either we list the three or list none of them at all. --Tocino 05:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, what may happen soon is poor basis for editorial decision. Second, the cases are rather different, lumping them together on a personal whim would be rather counterproductive. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 08:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretending that one is more independent than the others would harm the article's credibility. --Tocino 15:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then, we've got the classic case of Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. It has been recognised by a UN member state; namely, Georgia. Under the "at least one" criterion, we'd have to consider it a country. Rather obviously, this would be an absurd position. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 08:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, Ichkeria was recognised by Georgia only during the rule of Gamsakhurdia (in the early nineties). Second, and more important, *now* Chechen insurgents don't control any stable territory and do not maintain a state anywhere. Now it's rather a government in exile. If it were not 2009 but 1998 now I'd have nothing against listing Chechnya with other unrecognised countries since then it was indeed de facto independent. Alæxis_¿question? 10:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of argument, can you find a reliable source of Georgia having withdrawn this recognition? Continued recognition of republics whose territory has been fully occupied by Russia is not entirely unprecedented. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 18:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I added to the article:

There is also a number of countries that are de facto independent but enjoy limited recognition and are not UN members.

Name of territory, with flag Area
(km²) Population
(1 July 2002 est.) Population density
(per km²) Capital

Abkhazia^[r] 8,432 216,000 29 Sukhumi

Kosovo^[p] 10,887 2,126,708 220 Pristina

Nagorno-Karabakh 11,458 138,800 12 Stepanakert

North Cyprus 3,355 265,100 78 Nicosia

South Ossetia^[r] 3,900 70,000 18 Tskhinvali

Transnistria 4,163 537,000 133 Tiraspol

Actually I think that various dependencies like Gibraltar and Jan Mayen should also be in separate list. Alæxis_¿question? 19:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. The separate list is a great compromise solution. Offliner (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. I moved all colonies and territories into this list as well. DR2006kl (talk) 09:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All ok, here. It's succinct, and its not pushing any POV. --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is somewhat strange to group Jan Mayen and Svalbard together, as they fall into two different administrations (and Jan Mayen doesn't have any autonomy or special administrative status at all). Also this table is begging for inclusion of several other regions (ie. Northern Ireland, Madeira, Catalonia, South Tirol, Dagestan) some of which enjoy more autonomy than some of the regions that actually are included. One wonders what the selection criteria are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.120.122.106 (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fascinating discussion. I'm curious what the responses to the above post will be. Levalley (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)--LeValley[reply]

Freedom house statement

What does the following statement have to do with political geography? In 2008, the Freedom House classified the following countries of Europe as not free: Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, and Russia.[113]

The chapter is about political geography, and lists various political entities in Europe, their population and so on. The chapter is not about "assessments of political situations in different regions." You can create another chapter for that if you want. But that chapter should then include other assessments as well, such as if their governments are left-wing or right-wing. Offliner (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it not relevant to know which countries fail as free nations? I don't see why a new section should be created. ja fiswa imċappas bil-hara! (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it has nothing to do with political geography. Does anyone know the meaning of the phrase? --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Europe is a region of complex geography, rich past, and a variety of political systems. One of the outcomes of these bases is that Europe has a number of different political systems -- some of them follow the so-called Western values, others are, as Freedom House puts it, not free. It merits pointing out as an aspect of Europe's political geography.

Of course, it might be done in a better narrative, but this statement, albeit single, is a good start. It's self-contained, it's properly attributed and sourced -- excellent seed for editors to grow into a full section in near future. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 16:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with political geography. What does have something to do with political geography is that Abkhazia and South Ossetia are inherrent parts of the political geographic landscape of Europe, which is what you are POV-pushing to not include in that section, but then you want to include something that has nothing to do with political geography in the slightest. I really don't know what to say to that, except it is totally clueless. --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

?? Read the article political geography, which defines it as "the study of both the spatially uneven outcomes of political processes", being considered unfree is one outcome of political processes. Martintg (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of the geographical makeup of Europe, no, it is of absolutely no relevance at all. --Russavia ^Dialogue 20:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument makes no sense, there are geographical regions in Europe where the political outcome is unfree. Martintg (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well someone is going to have to explain exactly how Freedom House regarding it's opinion that the UK as free and Kosovo as not free has anything to do with the geographic makeup of Europe. This is a question that requires answering, and it needs to be answered with reliable sources, seeing as it is yourself who is pushing for its insertion. --Russavia ^Dialogue 20:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is to be expected that you'd be unfamiliar with this. Obviously, Russavia is using the Soviet definition of 'political geography' here. Since actual discussion of nuances of politics was pretty much verboten by the Party, 'political geography' was severely abridged to mainly deal with what entity governs what territories, and what kind of trade they engage in.

Of course, Wikipedia is not a Soviet-era textbook. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 20:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obfuscating the question with an irrelevant rant on what you think I do or don't use is not answering the question. The WP:BURDEN is on editors who wish to include material to explain their edit, and the question needs to be answered. The question again: exactly how does Freedom House regarding it's opinion that the UK as free and Kosovo as not free have anything to do with the geographic makeup of Europe? And it needs to be a sourced answer, rather an editorial POV. --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geology

First of all, the geography and geology sections are somewhat mixed up. Dr. Ram's statement is based on modern plate tectonics (geology). Geology is usually said to underlie geography - so perhaps it should come first and the plate tectonics moved there, while the mountain ranges as markers and the conventions involving rivers stay in geography, as is conventional. While I do not want to reopen the discussion about Europe not being a "real" continent based on plate tectonics, I do think under the geology section (which is so far down in the article that the etymological and common sense arguments have already been presented) should at least mention that it is not a continent according to plate tectonics, since the Wikipedia article on plate tectonics (which should be referenced here) plainly shows that it is not. While some people may think this is irrelevant to the article, it is most certainly not irrelevant, especially if one is interested in one of these topics: Europe pre-history and early migrations (the continental dividing barrier, which runs east to west heavily influenced migration into Europe, once above that line, folks tended to stay there for obvious reasons, and the part of Europe below that line was inhabited long after the landmass that runs above that tectonic line). Geology and geography have played an enormous role in European history (which I define as the entire past of Europe not just thhttp://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.pnge part after written language comes in, in the same way that "Europe" gets defined here as the way people have been used to using the term. In particular, the history of Russia and its peoples has been heavily influenced by the non-existence of any particular geologic/geographic line that defines it (this is common knowledge, but again, the article need only reflect that the underlying plates that create the uplifts (Pyrenees, Alps, Taurus, Zagroz, Karkoram, Himalayas) is a feature of the Eurasian landmass, such that in many disciplines (archaeology and what is called prehistory), one speaks these days of Eurasia (northern and southern) and not Europe and Asia (those are cultural/historic, not geologic/scientific) terms. The addition of one or two sentences and a link to plate tectonics is all that is needed. --Levalley (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley[reply]

PreHistory Section

Is very good and up to date, considering how quickly some of it has been changing. However, there's way more. This was a topic that got "researched out" in the 19th and early 20th century by archaeologists and others, but some recent discoveries (like the String Revolution) and the division of Europe into relevant pre-literate cultural periods is now standard in anthropology (and has been since the 1950's, I reckon) and so some mention of the various periods and their accomplishments (like the Gravettian) needs to be here. It is a complex subject and presumably has its own page (I hope), but as it is an area where I have collected many citations and am still doing bibliographic work, I'll try to improve this section as I compile the citations. --Levalley (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley[reply]

This article is only a summary of what should appear elsewhere on wikipedia in more detail. There is no article on the "string revolution", so it is probably a better idea to write that article first, if there are reliable sources and it is undisputed (the work of the paleontologist Elizabeth Wayland Barber, who introduced the term in her 1995 book, is cited in a number of wikipedia articles on the history of textiles, etc). As for the Gravettian period, this is mentioned in prehistoric France, but it's not clear that this degree of detail is required in this summary section when it does not appear in prehistoric Europe. Mathsci (talk) 03:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Gravettian applies to a period in time when almost no one was living in Europe - except in France and parts of Ukraine and Russia. It is part of a set of sometimes overlapping cultural periods for prehistory Europe. There should probably be a separate article for Prehistoric Europe and I'm shocked (shocked!) that there's no article on the String Revolution! Oh my gosh! I guess I have my work cut out for me. Once written, I'll try to link it back here - it's going to take me awhile, but it needs to be done, it's so interesting.Levalley (talk) 02:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)--LeValley[reply]

That sounds like an excellent idea. Happy editing! Mathsci (talk) 11:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The etymology of "Europe" and its' meaning

I long suspected the word "Europe" stem from the meanings of "Earth" in the ancient European languages, the European landmass was then the known world for them and gave names for the world "Eros", "Eyrose" and "Eurthes" was later called "Earth" for the whole planet instead of the continent of Europe. +71.102.2.206 (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've long held the view that -ur and -or are both ancient roots (proto-Boreal at least, probably proto-W-or-ld that means something like "land" or "place we live"). S'ur was the land of the Sumerians (an English corruption, IIRC, they called themselves people of Ur, and named their cities Ur and Uruk (second Ur), etc. Europe, Ural, Ur, original, all have the same root (my view).--Levalley (talk) 02:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley[reply]

Something wrong with the map

The map is missing borderlines between the European countries. It would looks ten times better if it had borderlines. 83.108.232.65 (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

volcanoes and laboratorise

Please strike "Europe is known for its volcanoes...and secret laboratories" immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.181.27.95 (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. —JAO • T • C 12:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russia population density figure is wrong

If you divide the Russian population figure by the Russian area (both of which I believe to be correct), you don't get the population density figure! Somebody has clearly made an arithmetic error sometime in the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.241.97 (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The correct population figure for Russia can be seen in List of countries and dependencies by population density or Area and population of European countries - it's about 8.4 people per square km, rather than the 26.8 that appears in the table in the "Political geography" section of this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.206.202 (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

States vs Countries

You can call members of the EU "member states" but when referring to the whole of Europe its divided in countries. For that reason I think it would be better to replace "states" with "countries" in lines like these "Of Europe's approximately 50 states, Russia is the largest by both area and population" While in a lot languages you can refer to a country as being a state this might give the impression that Europe is political organized in a similar way as the United States while its political organization is completely different. Even member states of the EU are still independent countries.

Edwin55nl (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. It is perfectly clear when one says that "Europe has approximately 50 states" that we're talking about independent states. Besides, the word "country" is also prone to cause minor confusion as e.g. Scotland is considered a country within the UK, and yet it's not an independent one. Actually, the bottom line is that if one can't figure out the difference between a US state and an independent state, they probably need to educate themselves in the first place. Húsönd 12:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd

This article claims - without sources - that Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Georgia and so on are European. Only so recently, calling Turkey "European" was disputed. Now we're in the middle of Asia. I feel like Rip van Winkle here. With Turkey, a case can be made that a part of it is a part of Europe based on the fact that around 5% of the country lies on the "Balkan" side. I can accept that. However, with Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, now I think I've seen everything.

You could make a case that Georgia has a decent-sized Christian population, so I guess you could argue that in this sense, it fits with the European cultural tradition...but wait, we are saying Europe includes historically heavily Muslim-populated states which were ruled by Muslims. So if religion isn't a ground to exclude Turkey or Azerbaijan, why would Chistianity be a ground to include Georgia? On the other hand, if religion doesn't matter, then what is the ground for excluding Iran or Syria from Europe if Europe is said to extend to "somewhere beyond the Caucasus"?

Russia extends beyond the Urals, but a line had to be drawn somewhere, so it is no surprise that our forfathers drew the line there and not in some flat field near Kharkov, which is just like the other 2000 miles of flat fields before it! Still, simply because a region was once a part of Russia (Kazakhstan) doesn't automatically make it European! Funny, the Urals thing is only one (disputed) interpretation of what Europe is...and this article not only includes this interpretation and favors it, but it also interpretates that there is no other interpretation. Strange.--Npovshark (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Npovshar wrote at 20:00, 15 April 2009, before modifying it on 18 April [1]:

This article claims - without sources- that Azerbaijan, Georgia and so on are European. Only so recently, calling Turkey European, though a case could be made that it was (around 5% or so is lies on the "Balkan" side), was still disputed. So now I think I've seen everything.

You could make a case that Georgia and Kazakhstan has a decent Christian population, so I guess you could argue that in that sense, it fits with the European cultural tradition...but wait, we are saying Europe includes historically heavily Muslim-populated states which were r:led by Muslims. So if religion isn't a ground to exclude Turkey or Azerbaijan, why would Chistianity be a ground to include Georgia?

So this is contradictory. If religion doesn't matter, then what is the ground for excluding Iran or Syria?

Russia extended to the Urals, so a line was drawn there. Simply because a region was once a part of Russia (Kazakhstan) doesn't automatically make it European. funny, the Urals thing is only one disputed interpretation of what Europe is...this article not only includes it, but it also interpretates that there is no other interpretation. Strange.--Npovshark (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The statements made above about the correlation between religion - Islamism and Christianity - and European identity seem to have nothing to do with this article and are probably completely unsourceable. The countries mentioned above are discussed in the article, because - as explained there - various highly reliable sources place part of their territory geographically in Europe; they are the so-called transcontinental countries. Mathsci (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. What I was trying to do was understand the rationale behind including these countries, which I suppose wasn't so important. What was important is the article's slant that the geographic definition, which is loose (explain what "beyond the Caucasus means"?), is the prevailing scholarly view regarding what constitutes Europe. Sorry for the somewhat unnecessary commentary, I was "thinking out loud", if you will, and I concede that it was a terrible way to introduce this serious topic of discussion.--Npovshark (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't disrupt talk pages in this way by modifying the remarks it looks as if I was replying to. That kind of edit is dishonest and disruptive. Please observe editing etiquette on talk pages. I have restored in a quote the unsourced and dubious remarks made by you to which I was responding. Your behaviour is becoming quite unacceptable, Npovshark. Mathsci (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't disrupt talk pages in this way by modifying the remarks it looks as if I was replying to Quite frankly, Mathsci, your behavior on this talk page never ceased to stop being ridiculous and you never ceased to stop being disrespectful. In any case, your need to reinsert what was nearly the exactly same paragraph as before did in fact provide some comedy on this mundane, dreary day at the office. Thank you.--Npovshark (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(noindent) (a) I have not argued interminably about single sentences in this article; (b) with User:Hemlock Martinis, I have added a large amount of content and sources to the history section of Europe. We did not initially agree, because I objected to using a single source, but in the end we co-edited amicably and constructively. As soon as you came to this article, you posted drama-generating remarks about religion and Europe. I am quite aware that many, many articles on WP are inadequate - most of the Bach cantatas are in a stub state; in mathematics, symmetric space omits all the theory of compact and euclidean symmetric spaces. Yet somehow, I have not protested about these inadequacies on talk pages. In these cases I am not objecting to single sentences that I dispute, but large amounts of missing content that I can immediately specify by reference to encyclopedic works (in this case by Alfred Dürr and Sigurdur Helgason). When I have more time I will add to these articles; but it is usually a very time-consuming solitary effort, demanding intensive scholarship of different kinds. That is what wikipedia editing is about; it is not concerned with pushing different points of view. The more anodyne and neutral this article is, the better. It should be informative, like all encyclopedia articles. Mathsci (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are Georgia and Azerbaijan in Europe?

Well, Azerbaijan and Georgia are both members of the Council of Europe and are regarded as "European countries" by the European Union; their embassies or officials and others have stated that they are in Europe, part of Europe, or partly in Europe.

Here are a few sources:

I would think that means that they should be mentioned in this article and it should be stated that they are regarded as (partly) in Europe by some. Do we have consensus on that?

If so, we could then discuss how and where to describe their status.

--Boson (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In reply Npovshark writes:

source 1)First of all, the Council of Europe is no final word on what is Europe, though they can be listed as a source supporting the geographical definition. As the situation played out, the Council decided these countries extended into Europe and could join the organization. However, and my second point, this is not a source saying these countries are Europe - "extends into Europe" is not "Europe".
source 2) The European Union's website...no surprise...The EU is trying to build a trans-continental union to expand its population and create a bloc power, and the countries outside of Europe in a conventional sense would like nothing better than to become "European" for obvious reasons.
source 3) council affairs, council opinions...why are other non-governmental sources not taken into account?
source 4) " "
source 5) " "
source 6)The source actually states that the country is between Europe and Asia

In reply Boson writes:

to Npovshark's comment on source 1: That source was to back up my above statement "Azerbaijan and Georgia are both members of the Council of Europe" Boson (talk)

to Npovshark's comment on source 6: The quote from cited source: "So, the northeast half is in Europe and the southwest half is in Asia."Boson (talk)

writing in continuation to his response about sources 1-6, Npovshark writes We have a consensus. But first, for the sake of future visits to this page, let me touch upon what I see as a fundamental problem; Wikipedia is not the place for us to promote the view of the world that the EU bureaucrats would like us to pick up because it suits what they are planning in their ivory towers, nor are we to project what these non-EU/non-European countries wish they could be. The reality is the countries this article claims to be European were never European and West Asia has "disappeared" over the years in the eyes of these bureaucrats. Where did West Asia go? Funny, the UN still acknowledges it: [2] To say it does not exist anymore - odd - would be like saying there is no South America (which would rightfully be regarded as North American Union, NAFTA propaganda). So what needs to be done....the biggest problem is (most of ) the maps and graphic elements make it clear what definitely isn't Europe, and in doing so, loudly proclaim what Europe definitely is ipso facto. Some of the text is pov-ish too. For example, declaring that the cultural or eu definition of Europe is "wrong" and incomplete. What?! There are other things, too...I will get to them.--Npovshark (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geographically, both Azerbaijan and Georgia are partially located in Europe, that is why they are mentioned here. The border between Europe and Asia and that area is not well-defined, there are at least two different commonly accepted "borders". In each case, Azerbaijan and Georgia continue to have parts of their territory in Europe, it's just the total area of these parts that change. Húsönd 19:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geographically they are not "partially located in Europe" - geographically, the Urals are considered to be the boundary of Europe. There is a difference. What I see is clutching at straws, taking only one interpretation of "what is Europe" and taking the fact that, with this interpretation, a tiny portion of countries xyz could be argued to fall within Europe's boundaries, and ultimately using this to argue that these countries are European. A division line for Russia had to be drawn somewhere, so it doesn't surprise me at all that the Urals was suggested...what this overcomes in regards to the lack of observing Asia's west, an area where Buddhism is rampant, the climate is drastically different from Europe, the religious texture is different, the terrain is different and the history is less unshared than not, I cannot say. But, at the least, this article needs a pov and/or factual accuracy dispute tag.--Npovshark (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Npovshark, the border between Europe and Asia is defined by some as the northern Caucasus (which leaves some portions of both Azerbaijan and Georgia in Europe), or the Kura River (even greater portions in Europe). There is no definite border, but the one thing we know is that both countries as partially in Europe, no matter which model is used. Even if we had just a single square mile of a country in Europe it would be still fair and valid to say that that country is located partially in Europe, as that square mile can't be in limbo. Húsönd 22:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Npovshark, I don't think you have addressed my points. Not only the EU but also Georgia and Azerbaijan are saying that the countries are (partially) in Europe. This does not make it so, but it does suggest that this view should be represented in the article. Are you now saying that this view should not be represented? --Boson (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think I addressed this already. If we are going with what the EU and its less-wealthy "we're Europe too!" cling-ons are saying and adopting this view as the predominant view, then the article does not present a balanced pov. The problem is an article like this cannot be both unless the maps are made to say "this is the climate within x's impression of what Europe looks like". Of course it is silly, but otherwise, we are favoring one view over the other.--Npovshark (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you accept that it is one view that should be represented, but believe that the current version of the article gives it undue weight (possibly to the extent of presenting it as the mainstream view)?--Boson (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. I accept that ultimately one view will be expressed, but only because I realize it is would be difficult to represent one without discrediting the other in the process, and maps make this extremely difficult. In any case, I fail to see how the considerations which still represent mainstream academic opinion [simply google western asia and eastern europe, look for resources and note the subject matter], are somehow less important than how the EU suddenly wants us to look at the world so it can scheme. It is an undeniable fact that Kazakhstan is Turkic-influenced; this influence, which stretches across an inner peninsula and into a state that is only 3% "European" by way of a geographical argument, is only the beginning of a very long list of what gives validation to academics and geographers using the term "Western Asia" (a term Wikipedia apparently does not even acknowledge, despite that being the one that I learned and the one that is still widely in use). You mean to tell me because some bureaucrats want to stretch Eastern europe to ridiculous lengths and completely erase the concept of western asia, we should click our heels and follow their lead, even if the rest of the academic world has not? So the way I see it, we have a choice: either keep the tag and thus acknowledge that we are promoting who we are promoting, or rigorously edit everything to make note of who is saying "kazakhstan, et. al. are x", rather than simply parroting that "kazakhstan is x" in the sense that this is wiki's conclusion, too. I've read through the wiki-stuff, and although it isn't always the case that this example is followed, it appears that this is what the wiki-gurus want anyway.--Npovshark (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of circular debate is not at all helpful. Where there is ambiguity in how transcontinental countries are classified, this is mentioned on wikipedia. The same applies to articles like Ethnic groups in Europe which periodically has problems because editors decide to take issue with the same type of ambiguity (Eastern Thrace in Turkey is one example where an individual editor has caused disruption and subsequently received a topic ban). Mathsci (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ambiguity can always make things difficult, but the English wiki article for "Europe" handles this ambiguity very poorly. It fails for all the reasons the German page, for example, succeeds. I will look at some of the other language pages, too. Some of the immediate differences are: acknowledging and favoring convential pov, acknowledging who says what, graphics and maps, etc. Why don't you venture over there and take a look? [3] You can't expect me to snap my fingers and change the article on my own, Mathsci, but I think the tag on the page is fully warranted until this problem is resolved. --Npovshark (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal opinions or what happens to be on other language wikipedia pages cannot be used when writing articles. As correctly stated before, the main point is to find recognized sources that are verifiable. Mathsci (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And this article does neither. I have been merely directed to a bunch of eu-propaganda - meaning eu bureaucratic websites (which make claims about what europe is) instead of academic sources which unanimously support the eu bureaucracy's definition.

I did look at the German article - it's half the length in bytes, 48 kbytes as compared to 94 kbytes. The English language article has far more detail. This is not really relevant to the discussion, but you did ask me to look. Mathsci (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is primarily about the first, although it necessarily references the second. (This is directly from the opening paragraph in the text). And my question would be "why? - why is the article about primarily this?" Who decided we should focus on one concept of europe and not the other? Yes, the German article is entirely relevant, but not for the reasons which you mentioned (size of article =better?). The English article starts off by saying Europe is half of Eurasia, Europe's borders are this and this. The German article, on the other hand, starts off by saying Europe is half of Eurasia and why the distinction is made - cultural, social, historical differences. Then, and only then does the German article say what the borders of Europe are generally held to be geographically. Compare this to the English article, which makes a point to express the view that Europe is geographical above all else. I don't understand why geography comes first and culture, politics, history, etc. come last - especially when one considers that these distinctions are why a divide was made in the first place. A distinction was not made because of geography. There are no sources given to verify the "fact" that Europe is geography first, differences last. There are only sources which say what the EU says. This is a completely pov-pushing interpretation, and it is actively agitatory rather than passive-presentational.--Npovshark (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a number of edits and I believe the problem has been fixed. Although the maps still remain controversial, changing the captions might do the trick without having to agonize over making new maps. As for the big map in the definition section, I can see its value, but it would be better to have a map which is not as pov - possibly, a map with just the geographic features highlighted, since this is what the section talks about? It is just an idea. In any case, I feel enough changes have been made to remove the pov/fact tag at the top of this article. Cheers.--Npovshark (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Npovshark, could you refrain from inserting (unsigned) replies into my signed comments. It makes it look as if they are part of my text, so I appear to be arguing with myself. I have tried to remove the confusion by indicating where you have made insertions, but I don't know if I caught all of your insertions. --Boson (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Npovshark has continued to make insertions at the top of this section. I have found it confusing to decipher these additions without looking at the diffs in the edit history of this talk page. Mathsci (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to fix this, and I think the problem is resolved. I should have done what I just did now immediately when I answered. My interest is in the ability of those who come to this page to be able to follow the discussion.--Npovshark (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia is inarguably part of Europe.--TheThankful (talk) 05:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of main map

Channel
Is.

IoM

Kos.

Franz Josef Land (Rus)

Adr-

iatic

Sea

Arctic Ocean

Baltic
Sea

Aegean

Sea

Barents Sea

Greenland Sea

Baffin Bay

Mediterranean Sea

Strait of Gibraltar

Npovshark. You are making what you must be aware are controversial changes to the article which reflect your personal point of view. You are soapboxing on this talk page which is not a forum. If you wish to make controversial changes that are highly likely to be reverted - since you object to the use of the word "country" - please provide sources. You should not be making changes like this simply because of your personal feelings or convictions. ~~It could also be that you don't understand that the word "land" is not normally used in the English language instead of country except in fairy tales.~~ Somebody else will doubtless undo your edits. In fact if you continue editing like this you could be blocked, for edit-warring, disruption and/or vandalism. The main map that you have once more removed with its carefully prepared clickable links to countries was placed in this article after extended discussion on this page. You removed it because of WP:DONTLIKEIT, which is not how WP articles are prepared. Please stop treating this article and its talk page as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Mathsci (talk) 07:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That map only fulfils one specific definition of 'Europe', so in a way it violates WP:NPOV. It is a well-made map though, perhaps it could be modified to allow multiple definitions to be observed? Hayden120 (talk) 07:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One way to improve the map would be to deshade all of it and preserve the clickable links. Another way, the easiest, would be to simple add in a heading that this map represents the extend of the Council of Europe. This article should say more about the council of Europe anyway, since it puts so much emphasis on it. So maybe the map could go in a section before the bulleted section entitled Council of Europe.

That should not be too difficult to do, and then it is not as if we are suggesting where, in relation to the Caspian Sea and the dividing line which cuts Turkey in parts, Europe ends and begins. Still, of the changes I have made, this one is the least crucial.--Npovshark (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for Mathsci, I am not impressed by your passive-aggressive threats and feel that your commentary has been of little value to the topic of improving the article. Statements like "You removed it because of WP:DONTLIKEIT, which is not how WP articles are prepared" give you very little credibility, because it is obvious to anyone with the slightest interest in NPOV that the map in question is a violation of WP:NPOV.

I have no idea what you are talking about with this "land" thing, but anyway, here is a perfect example of what was wrong with the article: [[4]]. The previous version actually had the audacity to say that other people's versions of Europe - such as the EU or a culturally-influenced representation - are "wrong", and cites a source that has nothing to do with that statement and only speaks about the alleged interests of those who are interested in preserving the cultural/EU. So there is one example. I have also pointed out the obvious differences in the way the English article handled the subject (see previous topic). I am now focusing my efforts on the maps, and some of these can simply be fixed by changing the captions (ex: the relief and biomes maps). Note that these maps not only shade in the Council of Europe's version of Europe, but they also shade in Africa. This is why it needs to be mentioned that Europe and the surrounding regions are highlighted, not just Europe.--Npovshark (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC),[reply]

In view of the consensus in the January discussion, I am putting back the principal map. I will leave it up to Npovshark to work out any changes in the captions he might wish to make or to suggest a different map; however, there has always been such a map containing countries, principalities, duchies, etc. For help in changing the overlaid captions, please contact User:Ssolbergj who worked on the map in January. Npovshark does seem to be disrupting this encyclopedia to make a point, just as he argued interminably about the use of the term "whites-only" in British National Party. Mathsci (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will do that.

Mathsci, your last comment shows a serious lack of good judgement on your behalf. You are attacking my person, not assuming good faith and bringing up commentary that has nothing to do with the article. How my interest in other articles is "disruption" is yet another opinion of Mathsci. The issue over there, by the way, was resolved. Since then, I have also contributed by cleaning up the article. If you want to snoop around some more, you can see some of those clean-ups and discussions. But I'm telling you Math, you are really digging, just like I would be if I said User:Ssolbergj, the map creator, because he is an EU supporter (his profile) and Eu-enlargement supporter (also on his profile), was only trying to push his pov by creating that map. Let it be said that I don't care what he supports, he can support what he wants. However, Mathsci, I will not hesitate to report you if you continue to try and attack me and I would suggest you remove your libelous accusations.--Npovshark (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are a very recently arrived editor - your edit history can be seen on one page. It is not a great idea to create drama by using "Absurd" for the heading of a section and by twice deleting an anodyne map. Quoting the edit history of a talk page is hardly libelous. Please calm down. Mathsci (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read this entire controversy, but I'm responding to some things in the first poster's paragraph. "Land" is indeed used in English, frequently, as alternative to "country," not just in fairy tales. I'm an anthropologist with a background in linguistics and etymology, philology and studying reading are my hobbies (or my profession). At any rate, Europe is indeed a land (it is not a country - country implies status as a nation). It is certainly not a continent. Finding a generic noun that describes Europe is a concern of mine, as I am writing a book about Europe. I think the word "land" is a good choice. I prefer the geo-shaded map that was at the top of the page the last time I look, but think that a political map (clearly labelled Modern Europe since 20__ (whatever year it was newly invented - as political/historical Europe changes boundaries rather frequently) is in order. Now, back to reading the entire discussion.Levalley (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember the context in which "land" was used in the article, but it is indeed a difficult word to use in a neutral way, particularly as a count noun. In my experience, it is often metaphorical, archaic, emotive, or refers to territory occupied by a üarticular people (Land of Nod, land of nod, land of our fathers, Land of Hope and Glory, etc.). I would not normally call Europe "a land", though it might depend on context. I am not sure what you mean by ""status as a nation" (another difficult, often emotive, word with different meanings in different contexts). I suspect you may mean "sovereign state", which is not implied in British usage. --Boson (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments: the political map should be included but if and only if an explanation is given (as I just stated) that it is recent - and just how recent it is. Then, the text itself must explain why outlying entities like Iceland are traditionally included in this non-continental plate based..."continent." The way the article is written (I commented about a month ago on this) involves such huge leaps. Europe is a cultural concept - it is not a "land" nor a "nation" nor a legal or political entity. It is all of those things and more. In some ways it's a linguistic unit + geographic unit, which is why Iceland is included - it's in the primary linguistic unit; the geographic boundaries are designed to excluded Persia and Iran - but to include parts of Russia. Basically, wars have been fought these notions, of who gets to belong to the oft-exalted concept of Europe. We should stay away from such controversy by pointing out the various ways of defining Europe, not by sticking to one, or even two - and certainly not by establishing some order in which to use the conflicting views. The reader should be led to anticipate that article, beginning with geology (and the non-existence of Europe as a geologic entity) then giving the various other (geographic, linguistic, prehistoric, historic, political and then modern political-economic views - in that order, which is the rational order in which to put them).Levalley (talk) 01:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Npovshark's edits

This newly-registered user has already made groundless edits. For example, he divided the countries table as fully and partly European countries but he put Armenia (100% Asian) to transcontinental countries and Cyprus (100% Asian) to fully European countries. I reverted them twice and i'll keep my on the article. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 12:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

has made groundless edits No, I have discussed them at length in the edit summary section, as well as here on the talk page. If you believe Cyprus belongs in the latter category, which I would also agree with, then please make that change. Discuss any other changes you wish to make here on the talk page so as to avoid an edit war.

which nobody agrees with (from your edit summary) This is not true. It appears you have not read the last comments relating to the mutually-acknowledged map controversy, just as it appears you have ignored the understanding that was reached in regards to sourcing the map and mentioning the Council of Europe. Therefore, I will promptly revert your recent changes; had you not mentioned the Cyprus problem, I would consider this your second vandalism offense. By the way, your complaint about Armenia goes against the BBC opinion and Oxford Reference opinion, as well as World Atlas, etc. All other sources indicate that it is exclusively Asian, so this should be noted and it should be kept in the border regions section, as it had been placed prior to your edits.--Npovshark (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most people on this talk page have disagreed with you. Please stop misrepresenting other editors. It looks as if you're trying to bully people rather than seeking consensus. Mathsci (talk) 12:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You, Mathsci, seem to be the only person to think this, and oyu have been quite hostile from the beginning, might I add, so I find your criticism to be highly hypocritical, since you tried to scare me off by using threats. Your latest change, which made "accepted by the EU government" a "widely accepted view" is yet another example pov-pushing. Turkish flame has provided no justification for his changes except for the issue of Cyprus, and that was a very very minor issue I believe. --Npovshark (talk) 13:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, Husond and Boson have disagreed with you. Do you really need to have this spelled out? Mathsci (talk) 13:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the hypocrisy of telling me to "stop misrepresenting editors" as you introduce Boson, who most certainly did not agree with you on the land comment, which was your justification for your lecture on "introducing my point of view" (SIC)...Hüsond and Boson have only said that Azerbaijan etc. should be mentioned, and that is precisely what my version does. It mentions them as extending into Europe, which is precisely the truth, and it mentions them, as countries which extend outside of Europe, too, as border countries. Levally disagrees with you, Hayden disagrees with you...the only person who does agree with you is a man who wears his allegiences on his shoulder and has yet to justify his edits.--Npovshark (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly refactor this remark about an edit that no longer stands. It was supported by two sources (the BBC and the European Union). Here is the diff [5]. If you think the BBC is an unreliable source, please say so. Then at least editors will know where you stand. Mathsci (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using Wikipedia's terminology, the BBC is "reliable". However, it is only one reliable source. I can gather many, many many other reliable sources which say Azerbaijan, et. al. are Asian. The point though, is this: "generally accepted" is a substitute for naming sources. Is this BBCopedia? EUpedia? No. Then the opinions of those who would disagree also need to be taken into consideration. When you hear "generally accepted", what do you think of percentile-wise? Is there a formula for this?--Npovshark (talk) 13:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Separating Armenia and Cyprus into wrong groups is only one of your mistakes. There are lots of mistakes and non-consensus edits made by you. You are denying that Azerbaijan, Georgia and Kazakhstan is partly in Europe, but the geographical borders of Europe are the same for centuries. I also agree with Mathsci and other editors who disagrees with you. You are accusing me of not reading the comments on this page but you're wrong again. I've read all the comments but you've modified them [6] and accused me. You said Is this BBCopedia? EUpedia? No. but you replied to my Armenia and Cyprus examples as By the way, your complaint about Armenia goes against the BBC opinion and Oxford Reference opinion. Isn't that a bit of a contradiction? And you're trying to add a note above the main map like this is the Council of Europe's or EU' Europe definition.... No it's not. Cyprus, Armenia etc. are CoE members (Cyprus is also an EU member) but that map doesn't show them part of Europe. Because it is an geographical map of Europe. It also doesn't show Asian parts of Russia, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Kazakhstan, African part of Spain, Latin American part of France etc. But the EU says all these countries are fully European except Kazakhstan. [7] --Turkish Flame ^☎ 14:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I edited my previous comments because I didn't think they were clear enough; I also wanted to add that my initial criticism should have focused on the problem, rather than my ponderings about why the sources were including these regions in the first place. "somewhere beyond the Caucasus" is a bit vague and open to interpretation...and while it is plainly obvious why the EU wants us to think of these regions as oil..er..I mean, Europe...I cannot understand why we would take their political-economic conception of Europe and ignore all others. If you have read the conversations, then I am sure you have read Levalley's point that this conception should actually come last. I did not go as far as to do this with my changes; however, I did make the meaning ambiguous and remove any opinionated language which would make it impossible for someone to reach the conclusion that Wikipedia is not outwardly endorsing only an economic-political conception of Europe.

As for referencing the BBC, I am not contradicting myself. The first part: I am noting that the BBC's opinion is used to argue that the map of europe is a "generally/widely accepted" version of Europe. With the second: I am noting that, although the BBC considers Armenia to be a country that extends into Europe, others do not...and it was a toss up whether to include it in the "extending into Europe" category or to create a new category. I settled for the former. Is that a contradiction? More importantly, with these ambiguous reliable source opinions on the subject, what are we to do?--Npovshark (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Separating Armenia and Cyprus into wrong groups is only one of your mistakes. Please be so kind as to list the rest of these alleged "mistakes"...--Npovshark (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting.--Npovshark (talk) 15:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I created the current version of the caption for the principal map [8] Above you described the caption as POV pushing, because I quote the BBC and the EU. However, in your most recent edit summary and edit [9], you now seem to approve of my suggestion and in fact to take credit for this formulation. On my talk page you wrote [10]I have given you a day and you have not responded. You and two other people who have no interest in discussing the article are not the sort of people I wish to debate with, because you have yet to say anything that is relevant. Your edits seem contradictory and hard to understand. I had no idea you had given me a day, nor for what purpose.

What is clear now is that - without consensus - very early on in the current version of the lede of the article you have spelt out criteria for separating off several states mentioned in the article and that you have recategorised these states in the main article "because of differences between the populations in terms of historical, political, cultural and legal and philosophical traditions." The recategorized states are Azerbaijan, Armenia, Cyprus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Russia and Turkey. This seems to be your personal point of view, because the justifying sentence is unsourced. Neither Malta nor Iceland are geographically in Europe, but apparently they're OK according to you. What did you mean by the word "philosophical" incidentally? Were you referring to specific philosophers such as Plato, David Hume or Nietsche? Mathsci (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I never insisted on "taking credit" for anything. That is something you made up, just now. Second of all, I did not use your suggested caption, I dePOVed it: you suggested "widely accepted interpretation", I changed it to "one interpretation" [11], so again you are misrepresenting what took place. Third, I did not make up the traditional conceptions of Europe, they were here before me. These are not my ideas; however, because I thought the intro from the German version was more neutral, and because I thought it was something I thought was accurate ("Europe" beginning as a psychological notion and borders being constructed after that notion, not before it), I used the German article as a guide. You mention the philosophical part, which I included from the German article because, although unsourced, I believe it to be correct. A part of this notion of differentiation between Europe and its neighbors, of course, is the effect of Western philosophical tradition and, most importantly, Enlightenment thinking, which I why the German article probably wrote "philosophical tradition".

Today I did some browsing to see how often the border countries are referred to as "Europe". It happens often, but not often enough to make a rule of them being enclosed within Europe, which is precisely what this article suggested before I made the definition less exact (it was exact because it adapted one view of what Europe was, which I think is POV because while it is the view of noted reliable sources, it ignores the view of other reliable sources:)--Npovshark (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Npovshark writes: Here are some other views from reliable sources:

World Book - these regions are not included in Europe: [12]
CIA - these regions are not included in Europe: - [13]
Europe.org - these regions are not included in Europe: [14]
Asia's own opinion: [15]
Central Asia and Caucasus Institute - you can't "integrate" into something you are already a part of: [16]

Other sources often use the grouping Caucasus and ignore the term "Europe":

Russia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia - "the Caucasus" is used, no reference to region as Europe or Asia: [17][18][19]

[20][21]

Terminology "Central Asia and the Caucasus" (no mention of Europe): [22],[23], [24], [25]

to a similar extent...

References suggesting "crossroads" between Asia and Europe, but no definite use of "Europe" or "Asia": [26][27][28][29]

(I'm noticing that the grouping "Eastern Europe and Central Asia" is a very common grouping for newspapers, organizations, etc.)

"Caspian Sea nations"/Caspia (no mention of these nations in Europe): [30][31]

"Euraisa or Central Asia":[32][33][34][35] [36]

Putting Georgia in "Southwestern Asia": [37][38]

Mentioning the Caucasus as a Region (but not as Europe or Asia): [39]

Kazakhstan: (filed under "Asia":[40]) (mentioned as Central Asian: [[41]][42])[43][44] [45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54]

Eastern Europe map that does not mention of Kazakhstan, Georgia, Azerbaijan, etc.) [55] Similar - Europe according to the CIA:[56]

Russian News Service uses phrase CIS (not Asian nor European): [57], uses term (Central Asia) for Kazakhstan [58]

Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia in "Middle East":[59][60]

Georgia - "Western Asian", "Middle East":[61], [62]

Middle East times - on Georgia: (called "European" because it serves political objectives): [63]

Conceding Georgia as being in the Caucasus leads to the equally hypocritical parallel of Armenia's occupation of the Azerbaijani territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, which for 18 years has been tacitly approved in Washington because of much muscle flexing by the Armenian-American lobby. If, on the other hand, Georgia is considered to be squarely part of Europe, then Putin will be seen as spearheading yet another Prague '68, Hungary '56, or Sudetenland '38 -- just as American neocons are now calling it in their effort to get key European allies to buy into their rhetoric. Sarko l'Américain already has. Yet what might a loyal NATO ally like Turkey, whose territory is all to the west of Georgia, have to say about this -- especially when told by many that they are not sufficiently "Western" to qualify for EU membership? Isn't there a better place for Georgia -- in neither Europe nor Asia? From now on, why not think of the Black Sea as the Russian Caribbean, and let Georgia be renamed the Cuba of the Caucasus? Turn it into a fully fledged U.S.-allied junior NATO member and give it a few rusty missiles pointed north. U.S. military advisors are conveniently already in residence there.

Odd interpretation of Europe (to Siberia and beyond): [64]

Central Eurasia and the Caucasus: [65]

Azerbaijan: (as Asia: [66])[67]

(filed under Asian news: [68]) (filed under "middle east"): [69] (as "far east asia":[70][71]

Cyprus: (not filed under European news, but "World")[72]

Europe and Eurasia:

CSIS (center for strategic international studies) uses "Russia and Eurasia" as a grouping, no mention of Europe or Asia:[73]

Georgia: (listed as "World" when the issue deals with Georgia, "Europe" when the subject is Europe's response to Georgia:)[74][75]Georgia as "Southwestern Asia":[76]

Istanbul: ("straddling Europe and Asia"): [77]

Northern Asia: [78]

So as we can see, these definitions are not set in stone and it is important that we do not play favorites to certain views (ex: why the EU and BBC's opinion and not the CIA, World Book or typical "of-the-region" publication's opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Npovshark (talk • contribs) 20:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "myth" of Europe

I have located two scholarly texts which describe in great detail the evolution of the idea of Europe as a continent throughout history. I have added the information from these sources to the "Definition" section. Mathsci (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is great...but why did you keep the version where we just throw the map out there and say "this is Europe"?--Npovshark (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the surtitle I have added solves this problem. I don't understand the advanced technology of User:Ssolbergj's clickable map too well, so that was the best I could do at the moment. Mathsci (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "The recategorized states are Azerbaijan, Armenia, Cyprus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Russia and Turkey...this seems to be your personal point of view..." I have already indicated that I was not relying on my point of view, but what I want to add is that these aforementioned regions have always been thought of as either Europe's outer shell, periphery or something a bit more distant. Now, and for mostly geopolitical reasons, it is becoming more and more common to include this periphery in "Europe", and the case can be made that these areas are - and always were - European. But, as the plethora of sources I have given indicate, some still don't consider these areas Europe, and that is a fact. That is why I continue to support my proposed version, where we talk about "Europe and surrounding regions" in a map (vague, which are the surrounding ones??) and "nations with land extending into Europe" (vague, are they included or aren't they?), which allows us to refrain from choosing one version of Europe over another. In doing so, "Europe" can be any of the versions it would have been had we opted to choose only one instead. Therefore, I have not gone against the wishes of those who did not want to exclude, for example, Azerbaijan. The only person who would object to my edits must be someone who wants to make it impossible for the reader to come away from the article believing Europe might be something which that someone did not have in mind.--Npovshark (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)--Npovshark[reply]

(talk) 21:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Please could you comment on my surtitle, instead of continuing a topic from a different section here? My provisional surtitle reads:[reply]

“

Clickable map showing European countries and states as well as transcontinental Eurasian countries

”

Wikilinks can be added if necessary. Mathsci (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for sources, in-depth academic texts or articles are what are required, not websites. I had to spend a good few hours today researching my modest additions. Try google scholar or jstor if you have access. Mathsci (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think all the states being discussed are transcontinental Eurasian states. There is also the well-established notion of European Russia. It's now just a matter of gathering academic sources which discuss these in detail - not websites. The two that I used have some discussion - single sentences - but that's not enough. Mathsci (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do like your additions, but they are a bit long. And yes, of course Russia; its core and proximity is what enabled its classification.--Npovshark (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed several things to stay with the "bulleted-idea" breakdown of geographical, historical, etc. I have shortened it, too. I have put the map at the end, and explained my change to the surtitle. They are not always seen as transcontinental, evidenced by the lack of consistent breakdrown in the way these countries are handled by government, scholarly, organizational and periodical sources.

I have changed a line in the first para which referred to natural border to the north as the Arctic Sea, which is not 100% correct. There were one or two things like that. I have reinserted the NPOV'ed version of the maps and the country by country breakdown. It is important to list which countries are definitely and indisputably European, then list those which are sometimes classified as European, but note that their territory extends to over the geographic definition, if taken literally. Feel free to discuss--Npovshark (talk) 01:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes

The changes I have made to your proposed version were purposeful. Let us go down the list:

The term "Europe" has multiple uses, which have evolved throughout history.

vs.

Europe can be described historically, culturally, geographically and politically:

This seciton is about Europe, which is more than a term. It is a thing. I am not sure "evolve" is the proper verb, because in many ways, the conception of what Europe is has, essentially, remained the same. This section is not about Europe's evolution as a term, either; it is less about history and mroe about various conceptions and interpretations of Europe.

Historically, in antiquity the Greeks divided the world into three continents, Europe, Asia and Libya (Africa), separated by the Mediterranean Ocean, the River Don and the River Nile. This division, as much cultural as geographical, was adopted until the late middle ages, when challenged by the Age of Discovery.

vs.

Historically: in antiquity, the Greeks divided the world into three continents: Europe, Asia and Libya (Africa), separated by the Mediterranean Sea, the River Don and the River Nile. This representation of the world, as much cultural as geographical, was used until the Age of Discovery.

Historically, Europe was not divided into three continents by the Greeks. in antiquity it was divided this way. It is a small difference, but critical. Do you mean Mediterranean Ocean and not Mediterranean Sea? Also, was this representation only challenged by the Late Middle Ages Age of Discovery? How did the Age of Discovery challenge the notion of the Africa, Europe and Asia being separatable (this division)? (It didn't, it challenged the notion of a world that existed of only these three continents.) Technically, this division is still partially used. As for the "challenge" coming in the Late Middle Ages, what of the Vikings and pre-Columbian explorers? So it was "challenged" before the 15th century, clearly, though it remained in use afterwards, until some time later.

With the idea of a separate European continent firmly implanted in Western culture, the problem of redefining Europe was finally resolved in the eighteenth century by the Swedish cartographer von Strahlenberg, whose Russian maps took the mountain ranges of the Urals and the Caucasus as natural eastern and southeastern boundaries. I added this section to the geographically section, because as it is currently in use, it is no longer primarily "historic". "With the idea of a separate European continent firmly implanted in Western culture..." is a pov-loaded statement, to suggest that the reason for the conception of Europe was only due to an old model which used the Med., Don and Nile as boundaries, which is not necessarily true. "Adopted" implies widespead embracing, whereas "used" implies that it was eventually abandoned. The Vikings did not maintain this view at a time when others were still using it, for example. Also, these are maps of Russia. Russian maps are something I will not be able to decipher or read - Cyrillic is hard!

Geographically: modern-day geographers depict Europe as the westernmost peninsula of the continent of Eurasia, its boundaries easily marked by large bodies of water to the north, west and south; to the east, the Ural Mountains, the Caucasus Mountains, the Black Sea and the waterways connecting the Black Sea to the Mediterranean are often depicted as Europe's boundaries. This model reflects the ideas of Philip Johan von Strahlenberg, a Swedish geographer and cartographer who in the 18th century, proposed that the two mountain ranges be used to define the eastern limits of Europe, along with the Ural River and the Caspian Sea.[3][4]These limits are discussed below in greater detail.[1]The people living in areas such as Ireland, United Kingdom, Scandinavia and the North Atlantic and Mediterranean islands, may routinely refer to "continental" or "mainland" Europe simply as Europe or "the Continent".[5]

vs.

Geographically, Europe is taken to be the westernmost peninsula of the continent of Eurasia; its limits are well-defined by seas to the North, South and West. The Ural mountains are usually taken as the eastern limit of Europe, along with the Ural River, and the Caspian Sea. Europe can be considered bounded to the southeast by the Caucasus Mountains, the Black Sea and the waterways connecting the Black Sea to the Mediterranean.[7]

The first version notes who does this and why, the second does not. The seas to the North, South and West...is not 100 correct, given the English-language differentiations between sea and ocean...Strahlenberg's model is, therefore, not "historic" if it continues to be used.

"Clickable map showing the European states, as well as other states and territories which can be depicted as transcontinental Eurasian"

vs.

"Clickable map showing European countries and states, including European territory of transcontinental Eurasian states"

why the need to differentiate between countries and states when states include countries? "Including European territory of transcontinental Euroasian states" implies that these are indisputably Euroasian when it still happens to be that there is no greater an inclination to look at them this way then not to. "To the Caucasus" and "To the Urals" does not necessarily imply that these countries must be included, but can. This needs to be taken into consideration. By calling this territory "European" you are stabbing to death any notion of another, non-geographic-based conception of Europe.--Npovshark (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Clickable map showing European countries and states, including... this suggests that the territory mentioned next is included in the clickable map just as much as it suggests that it is included in the European countries and states.

Please analyze the version I have proposed, and Hayden has added on to, in a similar fashion. Thanks.--Npovshark (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The cited sources explain at great length that the boundary of Europe devised by von Strahlenberg placed Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan outside Europe; the sources state that this was expedient for the Russians who commissioned the map. What is also stated in the sources is that he used the two mountain ranges as boundaries for the first time. His approach was later adapted in the areas not covered by mountain ranges (the use of natural waterways as boundaries), where there is still some ambiguity. The commissioning of the map from von Strahlenberg is described by the sources as a historical event. There is no need to conflate events in the article. Mathsci (talk) 10:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, we can only use secondary sources, not primary sources, for editing this article. Examining the maps, which are primary sources, to write the article would count as WP:OR (it would be quite fascinating of course!). Mathsci (talk) 10:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the surtitle, it would be nice to find one which is (a) neutral (b) accurate and (c) takes into account the three possibilities mentioned in the next section. I don't think either your suggestion or mine is ideal at the moment. Armenia should probably also be marked on the map, for the same historical reasons as Cyprus. I don't have any strong feelings about the surtitle, except that we should have one! Mathsci (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much agree here. "Clickable map showing the European states, as well as other bordering and transcontinental states and territories" could be a possible solution, but it is a bit long. I think the important thing is to try to keep it short and simple. And yes, I would agree that it is also necessary to have a surtitle.

As for your other point, I will play around with your text regarding the Swedish cartographer and the Russians. I think you have something good here, but I feel like this section here might not be the place. Perhaps it should be expounded on somewhere else in the text. I feel like we are constrained by the "bullet-description" format, but as you may have noted, it is also easier to read and reminds me of a "cliff notes type of thing" which, good or bad, I have a feeling wikipedia is often used as. Maybe we should preserve this and go into more detail somewhere else. What do you think?--Npovshark (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I've moved the whole map here with overlaid captions, changed the surtitle and added Armenia. Mathsci (talk) 11:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good! In fact, it works perfectly because Armenia is not shaded, but noted nevertheless. Ideal. I am not a fan of the surtitle though. It is a bit tedious and long. Maybe because it seems to be very example-specific...towards Armenia and Cyprus (2 of many!) By the way, why do you make a point to write "countries and states"?--Npovshark (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definition edits

Based on my response to Mathsci, I have reworded the definition section, attempted a better surtitle.--Npovshark (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mathsci, your edits are just as much pov as anything I have come up with. These borders are NOT in Europe for sure, they can only be interpreted to extend into Europe. To say the opposite is to push the opposite point of view.

As for your wholesale reversion and aversion to editing anything I suggest, it is really starting to get on my nerves. I noted why, on so many levels, what you wrote in the definition section was wrong. Leaving only a one-lined edit description is disrespectful and rude.--Npovshark (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like this last version of yours much better. However, I don't think it is accurate to say that the main idea of "Europe" is today geographical and political. In what sense is it any less cultural than yesterday? In fact, the part about the UK and Ireland referring to "mainland" Europe is very cultural. More cultural info is needed (sources), but I think that is a start. --Npovshark (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can add cultural to the introductory sentence of the modern definitions section, that's no big deal. The bullet for the history was inappropriate. The sources also reveal that Europe was used during the crusades to refer to Frankish territories in the Latin East, which includes Cyprus and Cilicia (the Kingdom of Armenia, then on the Mediterranean coast opposite Cyprus). The colour coding on the map was something that occurred to me later. I initially used red for Russia and other transcontinental countries - I dropped that idea fairly quickly :) Mathsci (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, a little political humor! I restored the cultural reference in the intro. Also, I made note of the difference between "historically european" -- which would technically include the countries in black, but do so without mentioning them, which would be a real no-no -- and external, historically european. A couple other things were proper noun correction and the fact that you cannot adopt something for hundreds of years; it becomes adopted and is then used for the period which follows.

I thought you might be interested in this http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granica_Europa-Azja

When I have time, I will look for more sources on (present day) cultural development.--Npovshark (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(noindent) The standard way around this is to add a footnote to the surtitle stating that this is the most commonly used territorial delineation of Europe, citing National Geographic, Encyclopedia Britannica, etc. WP:WEASEL words like "arguably", "sometimes" or "potentially" imply unhelpfully that this information is but one of many points of views, when in fact it is the most commonly used definition. That would be WP:UNDUE. The map represents the mainstream point of view, adopted by academic geographers, and we should not suggest otherwise. Transcontinental Eurasian countries count as countries in both Asia and Europe. Amongst the transcontinental countries, only Russia can be called predominantly European, for historical/cultural reasons. That's what the sources and the articles on WP say. If not in a book, journal or similar reliable source, we can't put it on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

when in fact it is the most commonly used definition Not quite true.

these groups support the map: EU sources (Mainstream but politically-motivated, not a scholarly authority), Encyclopedia Britannica (mainstream and scholarly) and National Geographic. However, we have various sources of the same power saying the opposite: the World Book Encyclopedia (mainstream, scholarly), Europe.org and the CIA (mainstream). I would argue that not using a modifier such as "some" or failing to note that "this is one depiction", however we choose to word it, is weasely (not the other way around!). You mention the "sources and articles" on Wikipedia, yet the polish article and german article do not espouse the view which we are endorsing here. This is not the most important point, however. The most important point is we cannot pretend that these countries are commonly regarded as intercontinental when in fact, the lack of a source consensus says the opposite. As for talking about the geography in general (not an opinion about which states are Europe or not), where are the sources which insist that the Caucasus boundary extends well into and beyond the mountain range and not just to it?

speaking of sources, I found the following to add to the extensive list I've mentioned in the previous post:

in regards to the countries currently depicted as "transcontinental", you are right to say that some of them are regarded as intercontinental by nearly all sources. However, to say they are all acknowledged as "transcontinental" by most sources is far from the truth. --Npovshark (talk) 12:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Classification of countries and states

The pre-existing Template:Geography of Europe gives a list of all the countries of Europe with three types of footnote:

1 Entirely in Asia, but historically considered European.(Cyprus, Armenia)
2 Partially or entirely in Asia, depending on the border definitions. (Azerbaijan, Georgia)
3 Transcontinental country. (Kazakhstan, Russia, Turkey)

It seems reasonable that in the section political geography this convention should be adhered to, rather than listing these countries or states separately with no explicit indication in the main text of the three different possibilities. In case of doubt, this can probably be clarified at one of the wikiproject noticebards, e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography.Mathsci (talk) 10:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would favor splitting it up into a European core of rarely disputables, as well as assessments regarding peripheries 1,2 and 3, making a note of which country is what case (1,2 or 3). This is important because in some definitions of Europe, stipulations 1 2 and 3 have led the press, scholars, organizations and governments to group countries with said stipulations into the rarely disputed Europe group, and other times not. In other words, sometimes these countries are said to be "Europe", other times not. It is important that we make this distinction; it is also important, especially if you want to create a section (an idea) where we expound on the interesting things we unearth about Europe as a concept.--Npovshark (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Most Common definition" - the Neutrality Dispute!

The surtitle of the map is POV. It must be mentioned in the text that we have selected only one of two most-widely accepted definitions of Europe. This should not be hidden in footnotes, which is an obvious violation of neutrality, giving undo weight to one version while practically ignoring the other, which is an equally/widely published view (World Book, CIA, Europe.org, Asian news, etc).

We say "this is the most commonly accepted definition" but I have yet to see a source that shares this conclusion. If, in defense, we motion towards the wealth of sources which can be found depicting azer./georgia (in particular) in europe, we are ignoring all the sources that support the second popular version. We cannot do this just because picking one makes things convenient.

I find it odd that I have been accused of weasel wording by writing "this is one depiction". "This is one depiction" has absolutely nothing to do with weasel wording, but calling something the "most common definition" without giving evidence of that certainly is!

I do not understand how anyone could disagree with this...we still do not have a source that says how far Europe extends into the Caucasus Mountains, we only have maps that do and do not include certain countries and two versions which are most prominent.

For those new to the dispute - here is the sentence in question: [80]

--Npovshark (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

What is the rationale for reverting from a standard continent infobox to the {{Europe_box}} template? Perhaps, instead, the continent template could be improved, e.g. "number of countries" rather than "amount of countries", line breaks for better formatting, and, perhaps, better provision for the note on transcontinental countries.--Boson (talk) 09:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with your assessment. I can think of no valid reason to revert the introduction the standard continent infobox, and since the editor who removed the infobox did not actually provide a reason, I am re-adding the infobox. I agree that the infobox could use some improvement—and I have made a few (mostly minor) adjustments to it to this end—but that is no reason not to use it altogether. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 17:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stonehenge

It is very odd to keep Stonehenge as a memento of something out of the extraodinary, when deep in the southern part and in the middle of the mediterranean sea one encounters a couple of more complex and older buildings than Stonehenge. Maltese archipelago has the Mnajdra, Hagar Qim and Tarxien constructions which are of great value too. (MLT1) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.203.76.234 (talk) 07:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Maltese megalithic temples are mentioned in the article. An image of one the ancient sites in Malta, that predates Stonehenge but might be less well-known, has been added. Mathsci (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Western Europe is birthplace of Western Culture????

Would someone please rewrite this section to more accurately represent Europe's huge contributions to western culture, without disregarding the cultural foundations it inherited from the

Jews (Christianity, certain philosophies, legal foundations, the reality of existence, etc),

Greeks (democracy, plus the many philosophical and mathematical foundations Greek culture gave to Rome and the west),

Arabs (the zero, castle building, plus many preserved aspects of middle eastern culture it then gave back to Europe)

and other Semites (consonental alphabet, writing, etc.

and Mongols (the cannon and violin bow came from them for example. Two things that radically shaped European culture).

heck, even Egyptian beer-making/consumption has become a huge part of western culture.

I would start rewriting, but I'm not considered "an established member".

Cheers--TheThankful (talk) 05:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[r]

[p]

@@ Line 111: / Line 111: @@
 Agreed re. Russia. The Urals are the historically accepted eastern limit of "Europe". Together with Asia, it is the "Eurasian landmass". Population figures for European Russia should be what's included where possible.--[[User:TheThankful|TheThankful]] ([[User talk:TheThankful|talk]]) 05:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
+If that be the case, then Europe can't possibly be the smallest continent, can it? Simple logic dictates that the largest country can't also be on the smallest continent when Russia itself is larger than the continent of Australia. But, since we know Europe, as much as a continent as it believes itself to be, is the smallest of them all, Russia simply cannot be a part of it. I'm confused as to why this is even a discussion in an article that ought to be scholarly and free of emotional bias.
+Russia is a part of Asia, the same Asia that nearly connects with Alaska. Never has Alaska been discussed as connecting with Europe.
+[[User:Dgaubin|dgaubin]] ([[User talk:Dgaubin|talk]]) 06:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 == Problem with the Principal Map (at the top of the article) ==