Misplaced Pages

Talk:Europe: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:31, 17 April 2009 editNpovshark (talk | contribs)682 edits →Removal of main map← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:08, 5 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,301,005 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Europe/Archive 11) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{skiptotoctalk}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{talkheader}} {{Talk header}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
{{ArticleHistory
{{British English|date=September 2010}}
{{Article history
|action1=PR |action1=PR
|action1date=14:52, 26 February 2008 |action1date=14:52, 26 February 2008
Line 7: Line 9:
|action1result=reviewed |action1result=reviewed
|action1oldid=194170757 |action1oldid=194170757



|action2=GAN |action2=GAN
Line 16: Line 17:
|currentstatus=FGAN |currentstatus=FGAN
}} }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|collapsed=y|1=
{{British English}}
{{WikiProject Europe|importance=top}}
{{Todo}}
{{WikiProject Geography|importance=high}}
{{WPB
}}
|1={{WikiProject Geography|class=B|importance=high|nested=yes}}
{{To do}}
|2={{WikiProject Europe|class=B|importance=top|nested=yes}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|3={{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|WPCD=yes|core=yes|class=B|importance=top|category=Geography|nested=yes}}
|target=Talk:Europe/Archive index
|4=}}
|mask=Talk:Europe/Archive <#>
{{Vital|class=B}}
|leading_zeros=0

|indexhere=yes}}
'''Previous Discussions:<br/>
{{User:MiszaBot/config
*]:<br/><small>], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]</small>
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}

|maxarchivesize = 200K
*]:<br/><small>], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]</small>
|counter = 11
*]
|minthreadsleft = 5
*]
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
*]
|algo = old(92d)
*]
*] |archive = Talk:Europe/Archive %(counter)d
}}

{{Broken anchors|links=
== Etymology ==
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Modern history) has been ] before. <!-- {"title":"Modern history","appear":{"revid":297852548,"parentid":297846608,"timestamp":"2009-06-22T04:31:18Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":1114443262,"parentid":1114442803,"timestamp":"2022-10-06T14:24:26Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} -->

}}
] (]) 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')...] (]) 00:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
: Got sources for any of this? ] (]) 10:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

== 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''."<br>
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.<br>
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. --] (]) 18:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
: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 Misplaced Pages 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 <small>new countries</small> joined the EU after 2000. ]<sub>]]</sub> 19:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
::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. --] (]), 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., <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) at the end of your comment. thanks. ]<sub>]]</sub> 22:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

==New background map for labelled map==
I'm replotting the labels on the labelled map ]. 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? - ]&nbsp;] 04:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
: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 ] in the west and up to ] in the north. I know that some might deem it necessary to show the ] as well as ] 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. ]<sub>]]</sub> 11:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
::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 ]. 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.- ]&nbsp;] 15:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
:::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. ]<sub>]]</sub> 15:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
::::I'm saying that the new map isn't ''too'' tight at 700px. ] (which looks ok) is even tighter than what's the case with the new SVG map for this article. - ]&nbsp;] 16:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::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. ]<sub>]]</sub> 16:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::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 ], so I don't think it makes sense that you merely conclude that the map shouldn't show surrounding oceans. - ]&nbsp;] 17:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Misunderstanding: I edited the ex-Yugoslavian states on the new map, the labeled map in your sandbox. Have a ].
:::::::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 ;-) ]<sub>]]</sub> 18:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::::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 ] 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.] (]) 18:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::Accroding to ] this map, the ] 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.- ]&nbsp;] 00:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::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? ]<sub>]]</sub> 01:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::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. - ]&nbsp;] 01:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
: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... :-) ] (]) 15:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
::You are probably talking about the infobox maps, not the labelled map in this article. ] is a more relevant debate. ]&nbsp;] 16:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::If people aren't interested in shaping a consensus here, I'll insert the new map. - ]&nbsp;] 14:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::::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. ]<sub>]]</sub> 15:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::::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. - ]&nbsp;] 16:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
(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. ]<sub>]]</sub> 17:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

: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.. arguments"'', I would say equals with 'ignorance'. I thought it looked like a small tirade. And that certainly doesn't "help the process". - ]&nbsp;] 17:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

::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. ]<sub>]]</sub> 18:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

== 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. ]<sub>]]</sub> 15:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

== Russia ?? ==

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.

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

See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Asia
http://en.wikipedia.org/Continent

Considering this articles (and my idea) belongs Russia (at least the most part of it) to Asia. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Nobody claims the opposite. ]<sub>]]</sub> 13:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

::The ] are customarily seen to be the border between Europe and Asia (presumably, they are created by the collision of the European and Asian continental plates). ] (]) 09:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

:::Oh dear. But they are not! There are no European and Asian continental plates - if there are, please correct the wiki article on plate tectonics and provide sources!! In particular, provide a new map of the continental plates as the old one shows plainly that Europe and Asia are on the same plate. You'll need to find one in an unusual place, as all the ones I find from .edu sources show the same thing. I'm sorry I'm being rather, well, sarcastic, but this is precisely this article is not a good one - it's not your fault for not knowing this, the article itself should have referenced plate tectonics, mentioned the unusual fact that Europe and Asia, unlike the other continents, are not in fact based on underlying continental plate tectonics (and so, "Europe" is a cultural convention, as the article almost points out in its first sentence and not a geologic entity). The Urals are not the result of continental collision. Neither are the Caucasus (at least, they are not the sites of direct continental forces - some of the upthrust in both regions is the result of distant continental landmasses colliding). It is a very interesting and hot topic in both anthropology and geology, and so it should be noted here. I am rather amazed, when I attend conferences on European history, that virtually no historian seems to follow the geologic story (or what they call "prehistory" and so, it is not uncommon at all for people to believe there is a plate under Europe colliding with one in Asia. In fact, as one can see (sort of) on Wiki's own plate tectonics map, the boundary in that region runs East/West, a fact that has influenced the transmission of culture, the movement of plants and animals - and the movements of people far more than the cultural concept of Europe, especially in times before the cultural concept of Europe actually arose. It is a very recent concept, compared to the length of time humans and human-like people have been in Europe.--] (]) 21:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

::::Oh my, ]. I would guess that no historian (at those European History conferences) follows your version of the geologic story because your version is misinformed. Is it your fault for not knowing this? I'll leave that for others to decide. ] wrote a parenthetical statement that began with the word "Presumably..." Experienced Misplaced Pages editors know that a sentence beginning with the word "presumably" is a guess: The author does not know the facts nor the specifics. That is why the word "presumably" was invented (and other weasel-words like it). ] correctly describes the mechanics of the creation of the Urals. He only misidentifies the landmasses that crashed together. Your claim that you have been looking at .edu maps of the current position of the plates and therefore (from artists' drawings of their present positions) you know what happened 250-300million years ago is astoundingly... laughable. Europe and Siberia are two separate plates that have been jammed together for a long, long time. The Urals were formed during the late ] period, when western ] collided with eastern ] (connected to ] (]) to form the minor supercontinent of ]) and ] to form the supercontinent of ]. Later Laurasia and ] collided to form the ] of ], which subsequently broke itself apart into the seven continents known today. Europe and ] have remained joined together ever since.] (]) 11:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

To try and answer the original question: the statistics refer (or in any case should) to European Russia. The idea of continents was developed long before anyone ever heard of tectonic plates, and (part of) the traditional separating line between Europe and Asia is the ]. A more contemporary idea of Europe as the EU plus a few countries who could join and some that don't want to, is wrong. — ] 12:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

== 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. ] (]) 09:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

== 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. ] (]) 08:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
: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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages, nor does their POV have precedence over other POV. --] <sup>]</sup> 09:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
::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? ] (]) 10:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
::: 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. ] (]) 10:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
::::Support. I think your suggestion is the clearest and most neutral solution. ] (]) 15:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
: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 Misplaced Pages as such, the project may have been compromised by your edits, not my recourse to Talk:Europe. ] (]) 14:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::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. --<span style="border: 2px black solid; background-color: black;">] ]</span> 14:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::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 ]. 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. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::::''They all have recognition from at least one other internationally recognised as per ]''. This is certainly not the case. The Convention specifies that ''The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states''. ] (]) 21:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::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 ] because of their own POV and biases. --] <sup>]</sup> 22:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
'''Oppose.''' It is the purpose of Misplaced Pages 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 ]. Therefore, I must oppose inclusion. ]<sub>]</sub> 15:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
: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. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
:I would also suggest that people read the ]. 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. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
: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. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
::Ultimately, '''Oppose''' as per Digwuren's reasons above and my own reservations. ] (]) 16:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
:::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. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
::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. ] (]) 16:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
:::You actually removed comments with . Just be careful is all. In regards to "nationalist" editting, it doesn't come into play with myself. But it may with ], 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 ] information based upon our own POV, and apply that uniformly across the board. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
::::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. ] (]) 20:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::Uh-uh. I'm not championing anything here. Otherwise, I would simply remove Kosovo, which is not recognised by a '''absolute majority''' of countries. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
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 ] and there it turned out to be a rather stable solution. ]<sub>]</sub> 20:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
:Maybe this is the way to go. There is no way that A and S.O. can be portrayed without some sort of disclaimer. ] (]) 20:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
::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 ]; 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. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
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. --] 05:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
::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. ]<sub>]</sub> 08:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
:::Pretending that one is more independent than the others would harm the article's credibility. --] 15:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Then, we've got the classic case of ]. 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. ]<sub>]</sub> 08:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
: 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 ]. 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. ]<sub>]</sub> 10:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
:: 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. ]<sub>]</sub> 18:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's what I added to the article:
<blockquote>

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

{| border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" class="references-small sortable" style="border:1px solid #aaa; border-collapse:collapse;"
|- bgcolor="#ECECEC"
! Name of territory, with ]
! ]<br />(km²)
! ]<br />(1 July 2002 est.)
! ]<br />(per km²)
! ]
|-
| {{flagicon|Abkhazia}} ]{{Cref|r}}
| align="right" | 8,432
| align="right" | 216,000
| align="right" | 29
| ]
|-
| {{flagicon|Kosovo}} ]{{Cref|p}}
| align="right" | 10,887
| align="right" | 2,126,708
| align="right" | 220
| ]
|-
| {{flagicon|Nagorno-Karabakh}} ]
| align="right" | 11,458
| align="right" | 138,800
| align="right" | 12
| ]
|-
| {{flagicon|North Cyprus}} ]
| align="right" | 3,355
| align="right" | 265,100
| align="right" | 78
| ]
|-
| {{flagicon|South Ossetia}} ]{{Cref|r}}
| align="right" | 3,900
| align="right" | 70,000
| align="right" | 18
| ]
|-
| {{flagicon|Transnistria}} ]
| align="right" | 4,163
| align="right" | 537,000
| align="right" | 133
| ]
|}
</blockquote>

Actually I think that various dependencies like Gibraltar and Jan Mayen should also be in separate list. ]<sub>]</sub> 19:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

:Good work. The separate list is a great compromise solution. ] (]) 19:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
::Good work. I moved all colonies and territories into this list as well. ] (]) 09:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
:::All ok, here. It's succinct, and its not pushing any POV. --] <sup>]</sup> 09:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
::::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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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

== 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.''

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. ] (]) 16:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
:How is it not relevant to know which countries fail as free nations? I don't see why a new section should be created. ] (]) 16:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
::Because it has nothing to do with political geography. Does anyone know the meaning of the phrase? --] <sup>]</sup> 16:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

: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 ], 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. ]<sub>]</sub> 16:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
::It has nothing to do with ]. 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. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
:::?? Read the article ], which defines it as ''"the study of both the spatially uneven outcomes of political processes"'', being considered unfree is one outcome of political processes. ] (]) 20:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
::::In terms of the geographical makeup of Europe, no, it is of absolutely no relevance at all. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::Your argument makes no sense, there are geographical regions in Europe where the political outcome is unfree. ] (]) 20:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::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 ], and it needs to be answered with reliable sources, seeing as it is yourself who is pushing for its insertion. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
::::It is to be expected that you'd be unfamiliar with this. Obviously, ] 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, Misplaced Pages is not a Soviet-era textbook. ]<sub>]</sub> 20:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::Obfuscating the question with an irrelevant rant on what you think I do or don't use is '''not''' answering the question. The ] 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. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

== 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 Misplaced Pages 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. --] (]) 21:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

== 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. --] (]) 21:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

: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 ], but it's not clear that this degree of detail is required in this summary section when it does not appear in ]. ] (]) 03:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

:::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.] (]) 02:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)--LeValley

== 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. +] (]) 00:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

::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).--] (]) 02:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

== Something wrong with the map ==

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

== volcanoes and laboratorise ==

Please strike "Europe is known for its volcanoes...and secret laboratories" immediately. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Fixed. —<small>] • ] • ]</small> 12:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

== 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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

The correct population figure for Russia can be seen in ] or ] - 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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== 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.

] (]) 12:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

: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. <strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 12:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

==Absurd==

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 ruled 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.--] (]) 20:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


== Europe page ==
===Are Georgia and Azerbaijan in Europe?===
Wiki, if you're mentioning the Caucasian countries Georgia and Azerbaijan, why not mentioned the 3 rd republic "Armenia". ] (]) 02:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


:Armenia is mentioned at a couple of points in the article. ] (]) 04:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
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:
:*http://www.coe.int/T/E/Com/About_Coe/Member_states/default.asp
::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".
:*http://europa.eu/abc/european_countries/others/index_en.htm
::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.
:*http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/Records/2004/E/0401281500E.htm
::council affairs, council opinions...why are other non-governmental sources not taken into account?
:*http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+CRE+20081021+ITEM-012+DOC+XML+V0//EN
::" "
:*http://www.kas.de/proj/home/pub/122/2/-/dokument_id-14985/index.html
::" "
:*http://www.azembassy.com/new/pages.php?name=Azerbaijan_Fact_Sheet
::actually states that the country is between Europe and Asia
:*http://www.georgiaemb.org/DisplayDoc.asp?id=78
: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.
:--] (]) 18:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


:Armenia is only "culturally" European (i.e. they think they are European). The country is located entirely south of the Greater Caucasus Mountains, it is geographically a part of Asia. ] (]) 05:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::We have a consensus.
::Please read the FAQ above. While Armenia is indeed ''geographically'' in West Asia, there are numerous political and geopolitical definitions which place Armenia (and also Cyprus) within a "wider Europe". There are also a few geographical definitions which place the ] region either entirely or partially within Europe. It depends on which definition is used, but generally speaking, Misplaced Pages uses the most expansive definitions in inclusion criteria's for Asia and Europe. That is why Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Cyprus, Russia, Turkey, and to a lesser extent, Kazakhstan are mentioned in both Asia and Europe related articles and lists, with notes accompanying them to clarify their physical geography, versus their geopolitical and cultural adherence to either/both continents. This impartial stance has been the norm here for about a decade. Regards, ] (]) 18:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Basically, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Cyprus, Russia, Turkey, and to a lesser extent, Kazakhstan are a bunch of Asian countries wanna be seen as European countries. If we use the ]'s definition of Europe, even the ] is a part of Asia. Hence, according to the British sources, the area of Europe is only approx. 10 million square kilometres.
:::End of this debate. ] (]) 14:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)


== Area of Europe ==
::But first, for the sake of future visits to this page, let me touch upon what I see as a fundamental problem; Misplaced Pages 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: 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.--] (]) 19:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


What is the exact area of Europe? According to this article, it is 10,186,000 sq. km, but according to the ] in my local library, it is 9,908,599 sq. km (they counted to the single digits!). Why are there a big difference between these sources? ] (]) 05:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:::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. <strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 19:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
::::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.--] (]) 20:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::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? --] (]) 20:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
::::::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.--] (]) 20:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::::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)?--] (]) 20:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
::::::::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 , 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 Misplaced Pages 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?


:Area will differ based on different definitions of Europe. ] (]) 08:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::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.--] (]) 21:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
:Because the Collins World Atlas is published by the British. They have included the ] as a part of Asia. ] (]) 14:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::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 ] which periodically has problems because editors decide to take issue with the same type of ambiguity (] in Turkey is one example where an individual editor has caused disruption and subsequently received a topic ban). ] (]) 21:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, ambiguity can always make things difficult, but the English wiki article for "]" 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? 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. --] (]) 22:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


== Armenia again ==
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 ] that are ]. ] (]) 22:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I see that I should have noted that the consensus ''is'' firmly established to include Armenia in the article for reasons given in a note. But therein lies the problem. The note reads "Armenia can be considered part of Eastern Europe or West Asia; it has strong historical and sociopolitical connections with Europe. The population and area figures include the entire state, respectively." This is just as much a justification for including Australia and Canada in the article, not making it clear at all why they're different. Since they aren't, this makes the justification look specious and ''ad hoc'' as though it's really being given only for the purpose of placating some group of people. This isn't a great impression for a Misplaced Pages article to give. At the moment, I'm not arguing one way or the about Armenia's inclusion but that the way it's been included looks almost like an acknowledgement that it doesn't really belong. ] (]) 18:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::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. ] (]) 22:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
::''This article is primarily about the first, although it necessarily references the second.'' And my question would be "why". Who decided we should focus on one and not the other. Yes, the German article is ''entirely'' relevant, but not for the reasons which you mentioned (size=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 press 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.--] (]) 22:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


:As a standalone it might give that impression, but it comes after the much earlier Definition section which should provide a reader a reasonably clear understanding of the issue of Europe's 'borders'. Would an internal link, eg. "]", help? ] (]) 06:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::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.--] (]) 01:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


:Well, most countries outside Europe classify the countries of the ] region as Asian countries instead of European countries. The only one which classify these countries as European countries are themselves.
===Removal of main map===
:The same can be said of Cypus and Turkey, and to a lesser extent, Kazakhstan. ] (]) 14:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
<div style="text-align:left;">{{Europe and Sea}}</div>
Npovshark. You are making what you must be aware are controversial changes to the article which reflect your personal point of view. You are ] on this talk page which is not a ]. 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 ]s. 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.
Please stop treating this article and its talk page as a ]. ] (]) 07:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


== Is the Turkish peninsula west of Istanbul considered Europe? ==
:That map only fulfils one specific definition of 'Europe', so in a way it violates ]. It is a well-made map though, perhaps it could be modified to allow multiple definitions to be observed? ] (]) 07:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


Europe orthographic Caucasus Urals boundary (with borders):
::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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/Europe#/media/File:Europe_orthographic_Caucasus_Urals_boundary_(with_borders).svg


Just asking, thanks. ] (]) 19:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::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.--] (]) 14:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
:Yes it is considered Europe (as is also clear from the opening lines of the ] article.) ] (]) 20:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:Yes, ] is a part of Europe, but it is a geographical region, not a ]. ] (]) 07:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)


== EUROPE IS NOT A CONTINENT! ==
::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 ], 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 ].


there is no geological evidence to support the statement of Europe being a continent. ] (]) 13:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::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: ]. 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''.--] (]) 15:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC),
:You will get further if you lower your voice. I suggest delete and start again. ] (]) 13:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::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 ] 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 ]. ] (]) 16:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
::Agree shouting is not helping. And in any case you should make an argument that geology is decisive. For that you may want to look at the ] article which explains that it is not that continent are not solely defined by geology but also by convention (ie agreement). And in any case what geography would you use? Continued landmass, which would render Eurasia-Africa a single continent (and Great Britain possibly not part of it) as would it combine the Americas into one continent, or would you refer to tectonic plate, which would make India arguably a continent distinct from Eurasia. ] (]) 21:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Thanks, I will do that. Mathsci is now trying to attack my person and bringing up commentary that has nothing to do with the issue at question. Now I find this incredibly ironic, given his past behavior. How my interest in other articles is "disruption" is yet another opinion of Mathsci. I'm telling you, watch it. I will not hesitate to report you and I would suggest you remove your libelous accusations.--] (]) 16:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:08, 5 January 2025

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.
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, 11Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
? view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: Are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Cyprus really in Europe? A: As definitions of Europe vary, this article attempts to follow Misplaced Pages's Neutral point of view policy. That means covering the view that they are in Europe, as well as the view that they are not. The issue has been raised repeatedly here, extensively in 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, and briefly mentioned in many other discussions.
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.
Former good article nomineeEurope 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
DateProcessResult
February 26, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
March 5, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee
This  level-2 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconEurope Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Misplaced Pages.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconGeography High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Misplaced Pages. 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Geography To-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

To-do list for Europe: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2023-02-26

To get to good article level


Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Article requests : Fix the area of Turkey in List of states and territories. Should be 783,356 and not 23,764 (from the Turkey article).
  • Verify : ADD inline citations - particularly geography to biology sections and for statistics throughout the article

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Europe page

Wiki, if you're mentioning the Caucasian countries Georgia and Azerbaijan, why not mentioned the 3 rd republic "Armenia". Sarocard (talk) 02:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Armenia is mentioned at a couple of points in the article. CMD (talk) 04:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Armenia is only "culturally" European (i.e. they think they are European). The country is located entirely south of the Greater Caucasus Mountains, it is geographically a part of Asia. 120.16.170.140 (talk) 05:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Please read the FAQ above. While Armenia is indeed geographically in West Asia, there are numerous political and geopolitical definitions which place Armenia (and also Cyprus) within a "wider Europe". There are also a few geographical definitions which place the South Caucasus region either entirely or partially within Europe. It depends on which definition is used, but generally speaking, Misplaced Pages uses the most expansive definitions in inclusion criteria's for Asia and Europe. That is why Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Cyprus, Russia, Turkey, and to a lesser extent, Kazakhstan are mentioned in both Asia and Europe related articles and lists, with notes accompanying them to clarify their physical geography, versus their geopolitical and cultural adherence to either/both continents. This impartial stance has been the norm here for about a decade. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Basically, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Cyprus, Russia, Turkey, and to a lesser extent, Kazakhstan are a bunch of Asian countries wanna be seen as European countries. If we use the Encyclopædia Britannica's definition of Europe, even the North Caucasus is a part of Asia. Hence, according to the British sources, the area of Europe is only approx. 10 million square kilometres.
End of this debate. 2001:8003:9100:2C01:F0F5:3D10:42B7:F29D (talk) 14:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Area of Europe

What is the exact area of Europe? According to this article, it is 10,186,000 sq. km, but according to the Collins World Atlas in my local library, it is 9,908,599 sq. km (they counted to the single digits!). Why are there a big difference between these sources? 120.16.170.140 (talk) 05:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Area will differ based on different definitions of Europe. CMD (talk) 08:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Because the Collins World Atlas is published by the British. They have included the North Caucasus as a part of Asia. 2001:8003:9100:2C01:F0F5:3D10:42B7:F29D (talk) 14:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Armenia again

I see that I should have noted that the consensus is firmly established to include Armenia in the article for reasons given in a note. But therein lies the problem. The note reads "Armenia can be considered part of Eastern Europe or West Asia; it has strong historical and sociopolitical connections with Europe. The population and area figures include the entire state, respectively." This is just as much a justification for including Australia and Canada in the article, not making it clear at all why they're different. Since they aren't, this makes the justification look specious and ad hoc as though it's really being given only for the purpose of placating some group of people. This isn't a great impression for a Misplaced Pages article to give. At the moment, I'm not arguing one way or the about Armenia's inclusion but that the way it's been included looks almost like an acknowledgement that it doesn't really belong. Largoplazo (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

As a standalone it might give that impression, but it comes after the much earlier Definition section which should provide a reader a reasonably clear understanding of the issue of Europe's 'borders'. Would an internal link, eg. "can be considered", help? CMD (talk) 06:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Well, most countries outside Europe classify the countries of the South Caucasus region as Asian countries instead of European countries. The only one which classify these countries as European countries are themselves.
The same can be said of Cypus and Turkey, and to a lesser extent, Kazakhstan. 2001:8003:9100:2C01:F0F5:3D10:42B7:F29D (talk) 14:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Is the Turkish peninsula west of Istanbul considered Europe?

Europe orthographic Caucasus Urals boundary (with borders): https://en.wikipedia.org/Europe#/media/File:Europe_orthographic_Caucasus_Urals_boundary_(with_borders).svg

Just asking, thanks. Teastain (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes it is considered Europe (as is also clear from the opening lines of the Turkey article.) Arnoutf (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, East Thrace is a part of Europe, but it is a geographical region, not a peninsula. 203.46.37.2 (talk) 07:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

EUROPE IS NOT A CONTINENT!

there is no geological evidence to support the statement of Europe being a continent. 197.229.7.18 (talk) 13:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

You will get further if you lower your voice. I suggest delete and start again. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 13:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Agree shouting is not helping. And in any case you should make an argument that geology is decisive. For that you may want to look at the continent article which explains that it is not that continent are not solely defined by geology but also by convention (ie agreement). And in any case what geography would you use? Continued landmass, which would render Eurasia-Africa a single continent (and Great Britain possibly not part of it) as would it combine the Americas into one continent, or would you refer to tectonic plate, which would make India arguably a continent distinct from Eurasia. Arnoutf (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Categories: