Talk:Europe/Archive 1

Whether Europe is really a continent
The notion that Europe is not truly a continent rests on a somewhat silly semantic dispute. Let's put it this way: the word 'continent' is defined by its examples. If, according to a definition of 'continent', Europe is not a continent, then that definition simply doesn't capture the ordinary use of the term. --LMS

Earliest use of "Europa" to mean Europe
I'm still trying to track down the reference in Latin, but the first use of the word "Europa" to mean what WE mean by continental Europe as opposed to the peninsula opposite northern Asia Minor (Thrace, more or less) was in a vita of one of Charlemagne's great-great aunts, Gertrude of Nivelles: "from one of the best known families of Europe." --MichaelTinkler

Whether Armenia and Georgia are in Europe
Should Armenia and Georgia really be included in this list? I know that they sometimes are considered European, but AFAIK technically the geographic boundary of Europe ends at the Caucasus, not behind it. If it doesn't, then why isn't Azerbaijan, another ex-Soviet republic, also included? Is it just because they're mostly Christian nations? -Scipius


 * The borders of Europe are rather vague. Traditionally, Russia is counted as a part of it, even though the country stretches to Alaska. A small part of Turkey (up to the Bosporus) is sometimes counted, at other times the entire country.


 * Looking at sports federations, usually the following former USSR-states are included with Europe: Russia, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan. The rest is counted with Asia. This does not have to be a defite division, since Israel is also often part of the Europe for these federations (of course for political reasons). Jeronimo


 * I realise they're often lumped in with Europe because of convenience and proximity, but I find that a rather tenuous ground for including them in the primary geographical context. Given the notes on how Turkey and Russia aren't wholly part of this Europe, I vote to remove Armenia and Georgia from the list to a separate note mentioning that they (and Azerbaijan) are often associated with Europe, but not technically part of it in this context. -Scipius


 * Why should they not be? They both speak European languages and are culturally and historically as European as Greece is. It is considered relatively likely that Armenia is the original homeland of the Indo-European tribe(s), which almost all of Europe, Armenia included, has linguistic and cultural heritage from.
 * Azerbaijan on the other hand is ethnically Turkic (who aren't really any more European than the Arabs). They speak a Turkic language and are culturally tied with the Central Asian Turkic cultures.
 * The argument that people in the Caucasus can't be European because they often have black hair or possibly live on the wrong side of cracks under the ground is running a bit thin imho... -203.109.252.20


 * I thought the Urals were at least part of the border; the part of Russia between the Atlantic and the Urals is generally called "European Russia".


 * Europe is a geographical term--if Armenia is European for linguistic reasons, so is half the planet, including northern India, almost all of the Americas, and large parts of sub-Saharan Africa. I'm not prepared to accept a definition of Europe that would exclude Hungary and parts of Iberia, while including Iowa.


 * The argument that people in the Caucasus aren't in Europe isn't that they have black hair--it's that Europe is a geographic term, not one defined by ancestry. If Armenia and Georgia are in Europe, so is Azerbaijan. Vicki Rosenzweig
 * That's hardly the argument I presented, my problem with them is purely geographical. As Vicki made clear, speaking an Indo-European language (though Georgian is in fact not one) is not a prerequisite for being "European" and neither is "having black hair" reason for exclusion. There's no need to bring these notions into it. -Scipius
 * That's hardly the argument I presented, my problem with them is purely geographical. As Vicki made clear, speaking an Indo-European language (though Georgian is in fact not one) is not a prerequisite for being "European" and neither is "having black hair" reason for exclusion. There's no need to bring these notions into it. -Scipius


 * I'd suggest checking out geological sources, since Europe was a separate landmass that collided with Asia. But then, Italy and Greece would be part of Africa.


 * What do we really mean if we say that Europe ends at the Caucasus. The northern foothills? A line connecting the highest points? If the latter is true then the northeastern part of Azerbaijan is definitely located within Europe and possibly some small portions of northern Georgia are too. I also think a mention should be made of Kazakhstan. As stated in the article the Ural river is part of the European border. Part of Kazakhstan lies to the west of this river and is therefore located in Europe. --

G_from_B


 * AFAIK formerly, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan was considered as part of the European USSR. Why should this to be changed after the independences?.

The Baltic states
How about "Baltic" states? Would that be Estonia, Latvia, et al.?


 * The Baltic States are most definitely in Europe. --Brion VIBBER

Notes for rewriting
My notes for rewriting this article:


 * Mention all the countries that could in some way be called European. Use footnotes for the countries that for some reason are not always included. BTW, looking at the mentioned Council of Europe (of which Belarus and the Vatican are not a member), all Caucasian countries are.
 * Delete needless detail for this page, or at least add the same level of details everywhere.
 * Drop all the footnotes that have nothing to do with which country is included in the list (such as the current comments on overseas areas of the UK and France). These are only confusing and really having nothing to with the issue. If they are to be kept, also add Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal.
 * Drop all the extra info on the countries' names (like "sometimes called.." or "(REpublic of)"). If they are to be deleted, be complete for all nations.
 * The different subgroups of nations should be listed in a see also list or so; there's too many of them, and they all have discussion over which nation to include or not.

Reactions are welcome, of course. Jeronimo 07:25 Jul 30, 2002 (PDT)
 * Sounds like you're the man for the job. Go for it. Ed Poor 07:33 Jul 30, 2002 (PDT)


 * I'm sorry, but I disagree. I feel this article should primarily be about the geographical context of Europe, with an extensive explanation of how the concept of "Europe" is a somewhat vague and ever-changing issue. All of the other definitions (political, cultural, etc) however do derive from the core geographic one and according to that one the Transcaucasus is outside Europe and hence should not be included in the main list nor should it really be suggested they geographically belong to Europe. I don't see why the membershiplist of the Council of Europe should suddenly overturn the common geographic definition.


 * The core geographical point is not well-established. Moreover, political and culture also play a role.


 * The core definition certainly is, as outlined in the article. It's the exact details that may be unclear, but the overall boundaries are well defined, even if (in the case of both Urals) they were mostly chosen because they were convenient. I've checked what several other encyclopedias say on the matter and all have the Caucasus as a boundary (Britannica even has the Kuma-Manych depression, which is north of the Caucasus). The Transcaucasus is outside. -Scipius


 * I agee with your last two points, but not entirely with your third about the notes. Since this information is added about Turkey and Russia, other nations' overseas areas should have a mention when a clarification might be needed. The people of Martinique or Guadeloupe do feel French, even if they aren't European. The note on the UK was not even about territory outside Europe and IMO relevant. I suggest perhaps putting the numbered notes back in, but maybe it would be better to just explain it all in a text below, as it is now. It would probably be easiest to just leave out the country list alltogether, but I'm not sure if that is desirable. -Scipius


 * I'd say Martinique is as much France as Greenland is Danish or Aruba is Dutch; feel free to add all the exceptions however. I think however, that all this is way too much detail; there's a note on overseas areas present btw. Same goes for the details on the confusing construction of the UK. Jeronimo 13:47 Jul 30, 2002 (PDT)


 * Martinique and Guadeloupe are French overseas departments. That means they are a lot closer to France than Greenland (not an EU territory) is to Denmark (EU member) or Aruba, which declined complete independence but otherwise has a far reaching autonomy. -Scipius

Breaking the article into themed sub-articles
Why not treat Europe like the various country articles? Have breakout articles with titles like Geography of Europe, People of Europe, Economy of Europe, and if anyone thinks they're capable of it, History of Europe. Ed Poor
 * Hey, that's a good idea Ed! Jeronimo


 * That will certainly help with reducing the amount of information the main article would need, but would not get rid of the present issue: what countries should go in the list? -Scipius

The map
Why do we have a German-language map accompanying this English-language article? -- Zoe
 * We don't now ;) -Scipius

Deleted statements

 * Turkey is neither linguistically nor ethnically European.

I deleted the above statement. It was not justified in any way. See the original discussion above.

--zeno 09:24 Jan 28, 2003 (UTC)

Whether Oceania is really a continent
When did Oceania become a continent? RickK 19:40, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Aah, the old "five parts" of the globe: I think it's in part a European tradition that there must be a terra australis incognita to match the other bits, comnbined with a need to somehow aggregate the non-Eurasian/African/African bits that might not otherwise necessarily be big enough individually to update the ancients' (to them perfectly logical) arrangement. It's all nonsense of course beyond its dubious macroregional listing function and our common wish to lump together things we're not too sure about. Graculus 19:55, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

There is no... node eight!
Note 8 is referenced beside Czechia. There is no note 8. Anyone know what it should say or should the number be removed? -- SGBailey 2003-08-06


 * This was about the name Czech Republic or Czechia. - Patrick 11:16, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)