Talk:Europe/Archive 2

The Regions [Updated]
Where do those alleged "regions" (French Region etc...) come from? I've never heard about such a thing. Is there some official document or authoritative source to point to? David.Monniaux 07:45, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me why Greece is often considered to be part of Western Europe, rather than SouthEASTern Europe, or the Balkans! Also, what countries are thought to be Southern Europe? Is it the whole Iberian Peninsula, Italian Peninsula, Balkan Peninsula and Monaco? Please List it out. Another question, what is Insular Europe? And what countries are part of, and what is the Alpine Region/States? If some one has the time to right out a list of correct regions of Europe that would be nice. (Not directional regions like Western Europe, but Benelux, the Balkans, the Baltics for example.) Thank You.


 * I'm not sure I understand your query. The "areas" map and section lists Greece correctly as part of the Balkan peninsula. Not Western Europe. Are you asking why Greece is sometimes grouped with Western Europe? If so - about the only association is with the EU - which until the two most recent expansions, was basically the Western European Union - apart from Greece. But essentially - I don't know what you are asking.
 * Zoney 00:25, 15 May 2004 (UTC)


 * This whole regions kit and caboodle needs to be removed until done properly. It's a mess. --Shallot 09:50, 15 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Hey Shallot, why don't you just fix it instead of completely deleting it? That would be much more smarter.

The thing is that Western Europe was used politically, all through cold war times, that's why it included all non-communist countries. Geographically, I don't think everyone ever counted Greece as Western (nor Scandinavia, Austria, as for that). This is actually a rather Anglosaxon thing: Germans generally say "mitteleuropäisch", that's Central European, when comparing other cultures to "European". I personally strongly object to Austria or Greece being called Western European in any context. And whoever wrote the introduction to this Discussion: The regions ARE strongly disputable and overlapping. I personably enclude Lithuania and maybe even Bosnia in Central Europe, which doesn't change the fact that they are integral parts of the Baltic and Balkan respectively. Jakob Stevo 21:09, 19 May 2004 (UTC)


 * The taxonomy bugs me as seeming rather arbitrary. Look at Corsica and Sardinia. Estonia is no less Nordic than Finland. The EU does have some sort of "Europe of the Regions" taxonomy, but it has a different granularity. "Western Europe" being the UK, Ireland, France, and Benelux? Bollocks. Evertype 00:04, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)


 * It would be so much simpler if this section hadn't been added in the first place! But it's there and probably as the terms (Western, Central, Eastern Europe, Scandinavia, etc.) are used, they do need covered! May I suggest we add an element of ambiguity, or rather, highlight the ambiguity. Perhaps the map should just have compass points, the countries marked, and no colouring? Or overlapping colouring? Possibly using gradients or something? The map is a problem, we can always point out variable inclusion in groups by changing from a list format to text/paragraphs - one per region. Zoney 11:15, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Regions Map
I'm assuming someone has edited the regions list as some countries now don't match their colour on the map. Grunners 19:24, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I edited the list of Regions, but I never edited the Map. Anyone-- feel free to change it, if no one does I will --anon

When you do, be sure to pick shades of blue and purple that are easier to distinguish. --Yath 08:37, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Definition of "Northern Europe"
Where are the borders of Northern Europe? I have noted that the name is often followed by the word biggest, largest or greatest; "The largest record store in Northern Europe". Does this include anything else than the Nordic countries? Is northern Germany included?


 * It usually means the parts of Europe where Germanic languages are spoken, or the countries that have no coast on the Mediterranean. Contrast with Southern Europe, which is where Romance languages or Greek are spoken, or that butt up against the Mediterranean.


 * Problem cases are France (usually considered to be straddling the divide), and much of Eastern Europe. The term is fairly vague. --PaulDrye

I am not to sure about the English use, but German "Nordeuropa" usually only means the Nordic Countries, possibly + Baltic. Jakob Stevo 21:13, 19 May 2004 (UTC) -

Status of the Channel Islands
No mention of Channel Islands in list of coutries; they're not part of UK. Andy Mabbett 11:45, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * They're also neither one entity(being divided between Guernsey and Jersey, and Guensey being subdivided, though not administratively), nor a country(instead two crown dependencies, I believe).

Extent/Map
Taken from the article

''Often other borders of Europe are drawn, based on political, economical, cultural or practical considerations. This has led to there being several different "Europes" that are not always identical in size, including or excluding countries dependent on the definition of "Europe" used.'' ''The idea of a European "Continent" is not universally held. Many non-European geographical texts refer to a Eurasian Continent, or a European "Sub-continent", due to the fact that "Europe" is not surrounded by sea and is much more of a cultural area than geographically definable area. In the past concepts such as "Christendom" were deemed more important.''

''Increasingly, the word "Europe" is primarily being used as a synonym for the members of the European Union (EU). Fifteen European states are currently members of the EU, with 10 more due to join by mid-2004, a few more negotiating for membership and several more expected to commence negotiations at some stage in the future. Almost all European states are members of the Council of Europe; the sole exceptions are Belarus and the Vatican City.''

I dont think this passage is correct myself. Actually Europe's physical borders are clearly defined and end at the Ural mountains in Russia, where the European tectonic plate meets the Asian one.

Also the map does not show the full extent of Europe's boundaries and is not therefore not correct. Europe actually includes roughly 1\3 of Russia, which is not shown on the map on this article. G-Man 18:37, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that both the geographic and other boundaries are worth a mention in the article. It does seem odd to prefer some of the latter on the /map/... --Shallot 21:15, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * What is the European tectonic plate? As far as I can tell from Wikipedia and elsewhere, Europe and Asia are both part of the Eurasian plate, and the Ural mountains were caused by an ancient collision between long-since altered structures. Jxg 17:23, 2004 May 21 (UTC)

The fact remains that the current map does not show the whole of Europe, a better map of Europe is here G-Man 22:15, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Agree, but also there Svalbard is missing... --Jakro64 14:09, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually this is old stuff. The map that was commented about in April was different, smaller in scope, from the present one. It was Image:Europe-large.png. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   15:04, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The starry flag
I reverted Moravice's removal of the European flag because AFAICS it was being removed on the grounds that it's only a symbol of the EU, rather than the whole continent. This isn't so; the Council of Europe (who are not part of the European Union but themselves use the flag as a symbol) designed it as a pan-European flag. More is at European flag. Marnanel 22:32, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks to Marnanel for correcting my error. However I stil can't see any reason for the flag being on the page for the continent Europe without references or even a natural placement (the curent seems pretty random). Moravice
 * I had no idee that the flag was the work of the Council of Europe not only a symbol of the EU. And as I found no explenation of it being there, on the page or any previous discusion on the talk pages, I simply removed it.

There are no references at all in the text to the flag, noe reasons given why it should be relevant to display it at the Europe page. Of course at least one good reason could be given: The flag represents a large fraction of the European countries, namely EU. But in the text you don't find that argument.The argument provided by Maranel sounds strange. Why should EU choise a flag representing an other unit? Whatever history the flag might have, EU has taken the flag and converted it to a symbol for the EU members. It could not be any doubt of this.Conlusion: I remove the flag. Arnejohs
 * Moravice is of course right. There are two fundamental reasons why the flag has to be removed:


 * There certainly needs to be context for the flag - but Arnejohs, it is the flag of the Council of Europe - of which most European (not just EU) States are members. The Council of Europe continues to be seperate from the EU - that's why there's two 'Europe Days'. Conclusion - this is the European flag. Besides - to outsiders the EU and Europe are largely synonymous - which is fair enough considering more and more States will be joining the EU once conditions are right. The only exceptions are likely to continue to be Iceland, Norway and Switzerland - other States will be joining when they're ready!!!
 * Zoney 11:31, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Certainly, I do not deny that this flag was (is?) the flag of the Council of Europe (it&#8217;s already said in the text above). In 1983 it was declared as the flag of Europe by EU. Today the rest of the world recognises the flag as the EU flag. OK, may be some people don&#8217;t differ between EU and Europe, but an encyclopaedia needs to. EU tries to annexe the word &#8216;Europe&#8217; as the U.S. of A. took the word &#8216;America&#8217;. To insiders the US of A and America are largely synonymous - which is not fair enough and should be avoided in the case of Europe by spreading knowledge rather than confusion.

We have to accept that this flag today is understood as the flag of EU. Let me give you an example: Inside EU number plates on all cars in addition to a number also displays this flag. It is impossible to think that this could happen in European countries outside EU. Even the Council of Europe has understood this and adopted a new logo. Arnejohs

The Middle Ages, the Dark Ages and Medieval times
Surely it is not correct to say that the Dark Ages extended up until the Renaissance. The Dark Ages started in the 5th century CE and ended about the time of Charlemagne, around 800 CE. The Renaissance did not start until the 14th century. In between was the "Middle Ages", a well understood period of feudal states which were not "dark" and which included the cathedral-building period and the Crusades.


 * According to my history books, the whole period between 476 and 1492 is referred to as the Middle Ages, and the Dark Ages are mentioned as a more subjective name for earlier periods of the Middle Ages. I guess it depends on the historian's views. --Shallot 17:29, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

The term "Dark ages", though used, is somewhat POV. It should at least be mentioned in conjunction with the term Middle ages, or the people who coined the phrase, enlightenment thinkers. To confuse thing further, the term middle ages is used in two ways, broadly (the end of classical antiquity, roughly when Rome fell in 476 A.D. to the Itallian renaissance), or narrowly (from c1000AD to c1500AD). Both terms refer to European history. The latter definition has also been called the "dark ages", the "darkness" being due to lack of (personal) "enlightenment" in the terms of the original users of the phrase. Mr. Jones 14:50, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Having looked into this further, it seems that the term Medieval refers to the broader sense of Middle Ages unambiguously. I suggest that Wikipedia adopts the convention of never using the term "Dark Ages" at all, unless quoting someone else or otherwise representing an opinion, "Middle Ages" exclusively in its narrow sense, and "Medieval" in the normal way. This would be noted in the three relevant articles, and in the article if confusion were likely. Thoughts? Should this go to Meta or the Village Pump? Mr. Jones 14:59, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Cyprus is in CoE and EU not Europe
Cyprus is located south of Turkey and west of Syria, and therefore not in Europe. If it were, then all of Turkey would be considered in Europe. Cyprus is already mentioned as a member of the European Union. Pædia | talk 17:14, 2004 May 4 (UTC)


 * We allow some variation in the descriptions and in the maps based on criteria that aren't geographic. To completely omit Cyprus would be pointless. --Shallot 17:22, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'We'? What authoritative resource places Cyprus in Europe? Pædia | talk 17:52, 2004 May 4 (UTC)


 * The geographical definition can't be the ultimate one, because this is a general encyclopedia entry on Europe, not one that describes only its geography. (Besides, that definition is also a matter of agreement among scholars, not obvious physical geography.) The same way we shouldn't cater to people who would blithely kick out e.g. Kazakhstan because only a small part of it is in Europe, we shouldn't kick out Cyprus because it's beyond the strict geographical boundary. --Shallot 18:50, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Why is link to the 'general' World Factbook page 'largely impertinent'? Would CIA - The World Factbook -- Field Listing - Location be more appropriate, as it lists continents? Pædia | talk 17:52, 2004 May 4 (UTC)


 * Possibly, but it's still not a list of European countries but of all countries in the world. The page on the CIA World Factbook is the one that should include the link to the Factbook front page, and it does that already IIRC. --Shallot 18:50, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Good point about the CIA - The World Factbook front page. Pædia | talk 15:19, 2004 May 5 (UTC)

Cyprus is a European country in much the same way as is Iceland. The people of Cyprus are Greek (except a minority of Turks because of the Turkish occupation(s)). Defining who is what by continental lines doesn't really make sense, as they only exist in a geological sense and can seldom ever be physically distinguished to the untrained eye. So we have a situation where people are pretending Turkey is a European country because a small part of it is in continental Europe (even though Turkey is no more European than Syria), while Georgia is called an Asian country because of its location. Its president stated "Georgia is not just a European country, but one of the most ancient European countries. Our place is in European civilisation". But I think the design of the national flags is the most telling. &#5795;&#5815;&#5815;&#5854;&#5809;&#5803;&#5835;&#5825;&#5850;

Cyprus is demographically and politically European but geographically Middle Eastern. However, Iceland is wholly European according to CIA - The World Factbook, Columbia Encyclopedia and Encyclopædia Britannica, e.g. 'glaciers, such as Vatna Glacier (Vatnajökull), Europe's largest'. Turkey is politically European and culturally Middle Eastern. Syria is wholly Middle Eastern. I had the understanding that Europe is geographic, with European Union and Council of Europe as the political equivalents. If this is wrong, I apologise. Pædia | talk 15:19, 2004 May 5 (UTC)

There's no doubt that Cyprus is not geographically European and as Europe is a geographical body ("Europe is a continent") Cyprus should not be mentioned as a country in Europe (eventhough they are a member of The European Union). A new page on European culture or European civilization would perhaps solve this dispute? Moravice 22:31, 2004 May 7 (CET)


 * I added a new table in section "Independent states". I hope the notes attached therein to the nations should satisfy the NPOV. There's a new section in this talk page, "new table added to "independent states"" below, where I suggest we consolidate discussion on this issue. Teemu Leisti 22:59, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

An issue of NPOV

 * I think the NPOV comes up here: since there's apparently different opinions, Wikipedia should reflect all in a neutral way. To me, mentioning all nations that are by some regarded as European are mentioned; those that are not always included are annotated, footnoted or whatever to mark that their inclusion is debatable. Jeronimo


 * NPOV may also demand that we keep to the only definition of Europe that is at least reasonably clear, the geographical one, which is also the most neutral one, since it doesn't necessarily involve those troublesome human creatures and their differing ideas ;) I'm concerned about the definition here; we give it at the top of the page and then violate it in the prominent list. On what ground is Armenia European, but not the whole of Russia, Turkey or even Israel? See also the maps that are now added that don't have the Transcaucasus in Europe, but do include it in Asia. I'll move the Transcaucasus to a separate note after some time, while awaiting any further comments. -Scipius


 * No, NPOV says all "sides of the story" should be told in a neutral way. BTW, another encyclopedia I checked mentions that the Caucasian states are included "by convention", mentioning the Caucasus range as the southern border, also "by convention". Jeronimo


 * Including the Transcaucasus in the main list is not neutral IMO, but rather acknowledging a certain view. The issue here is which definition to use and taking the core geographic definition of Europe and adhering strictly to it in terms of classifying nations can serve as a base to explain all the other definitions of Europe. What would you do about the as yet non-existent list of Asian countries? Would you include or exclude the Transcaucasus there? Can a whole country belong to two continents at the same time? -Scipius
 * Acknowledging different points of view is neutrality. Stating amongst whom such opinions are popular is, too. Pretending such views don't exist or can somehow be disregarded is very much POV.  Both geographical and political definitions must be included.  It is a common tactic to pick a perspective of something that is in of itself neutral, but happens to be in accord with what one would have people believe (e.g. the Mercator projection).  NPOV requires us to strive to avoid such bias. Mr. Jones 14:09, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

The geographical boundaries of the European continent are not as easy to define as, say, those of Africa. The inclusion issue is practically a textbook case of the need to honor several disparate points of view. I think all agree that France is in Europe, but what about Iceland? Okay, then what about Greenland? Where are the exact boundaries, and who draws them?

All we can say is that according to so-and-so the boundary is here, while thus-and-such says it's there. Is Turkey in Europe? I don't know or care! Just tell me who says it is, and leave it at that, please. Ed Poor


 * As I said, the geographic one outlined in the article is pretty well established AFAIK. Iceland used to have a note saying it didn't belong to any continent (it's right on the mid-Atlantic ridge and though I've never heard of tectonic plates being used in continental definitions, it's debatable), but since we need to classify it somewhere it clearly belongs to Europe. Greenland is North American by most accounts. And not all of France is in Europe ;) -Scipius

That may well be true, but the views on the political boundaries should also be discussed. The discussion has a limit to it because a) There is a finite number of countries and b) there are countries we can with certainty say are not part of Europe (America, India and China, for instance). The border cases (no pun intended) can be marked as such, and their alternative affiliations listed. I may do this one day, but it'd be months before I got round to it. Mr. Jones 14:18, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say that countries that are in some capacity regarded as European should be mentioned - and a note on what ways they are/aren't European. I know this article is primarily about the geographic entity - but people should find what they expect under the article 'Europe' - its not a term related only to a very strict definition of the continent. Include Cyprus, and Georgia,Armenia,Azerbaijan - whatever else is appropriate, drawing a line perhaps against including Israel (Eurovision song contest is about the only (if bizarre) link) - although in discussing countries regarded as in Europe or not and that dispute, it could finish with a remark about Israel being in the Song contest and that it sort of prefers Europe to its neighbours!

Zoney 10:18, 10 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I added a new table in section "Independent states". I hope the notes attached to the nations should satisfy the NPOV. There's a new section in this talk page, "new table added to "independent states"" below, where I suggest we consolidate discussion on this issue. Teemu Leisti 22:59, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Israel is in the Eurovision song contest, as the contest is open to members of the European Broadcsting Union, not European countries. For this reason some 'European' nations cannot compete, whilst several non-European nations, such as Israel and Morrocco can enter. Grunners


 * You miss the irony in your argument as to why Israel's Eurovision participation doesn't denote an association with Europe. The European Broadcasting Union? It's still a bizarre quirk and an association with Europe. Zoney 18:33, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

The broadcasting is European, but perhaps the union isn't :-) Mr. Jones 22:46, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Political Nations of Europe
I believe that 'Europe' should be defined in political terms, as there is no definate geographical border with Asia. Therefore the following would apply.

Confirmation that in political terms the Caucaus states of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia are part of Europe.

Turkey and Russia are politically considered European (although only the western parts of their territory are in geographic Europe).

The following are dependencies of another European state: Jersey, Guernsey, Isle of Man, Gibraltar, Kaliningrad, Faroe Islands, Svalbard. The first 4 are NOT in the UK.

Although some overseas territories of European states are considered part of that state in that they have no autonomy (e.g. French Guyana, Canary Islands) they do not form part of Europe.

That about covers it :) Grunners


 * Excuse me, how will you define what is politically Europe? Bosnia is not, because it has a non-functioning administratian? Lithuania is not, because it was largely pagan up to 14. century? Ethiopia is Europe, because it has a longer Christian tradition than Britain or Northern Germany? Alaska is Europe, because it was under Russian rule for some time? Sorry, but the geographical definition is the only one we CAN use without getting into ideological disputes!Jakob Stevo 21:24, 19 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Those are extreme and absurd examples, no-one would agree with excluding/including the above nations from a political Europe group.
 * The initial point is well made. It's very narrow to consider Europe only in the context of strict geographical boundaries. Europe is a label, an association. Cyprus for example, most people would quite simply consider as "in Europe" - it's in the European Union - how on earth could its exclusion based on narrow geographic definitions be warranted.
 * Similarly, despite the debate, Russia and Turkey should simply be included. To most without prejudice to those countries - they are simply considered European in their whole. Hence Euronews showing the weather in Vladivostock, geographically not in Europe, but part of Russia, of which the main populated part and power centre is in Europe.
 * The people wishing a narrow definition are just firmly anti-Europe, or anti-Muslim (in the case of Turkey).
 * Zoney 21:46, 19 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I was conciously using absurd examples. I think that the geographical definition is the only useful one we have. "Political" or "cultural" definition opens the door to interpretation. Is Aserbeijan Europe? If so, Why isn't Tadjikistan? If so, shouldn't Afghanistan be to? I think Europe as a geographical term is pretty clearly defined and doesn't necessarily imply any cultural or political or bo&#382;e sa&#269;uvaj ethnical connotations.
 * I suggest: the introduction should clearly stick to the geographical definition. Whereever other aspects of the term are discussed, it should be made clear that they are not Europe in a "scientific" sense and why they may still be considered Europe by some. Anyway, I'm proud to be European and happy to presently live in a predominantly Muslim surrounding, so your accusation don't fit in my case :-)Jakob Stevo 22:43, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
 * One can come to a consensus through editing. In all the marginal cases, there is little reason to be completely against inclusion unless you are using the strict geographic definitions. So all that is left is for the wording to be worked out.
 * Afghanistan, Tajikistan. These haven't ever remotely been considered Europe. Azerbaijan is grouped with Europe - frequently, along with Georgia and Armenia.
 * If you're happy to have a piece on the status of these three states and others, why were you disagreeing with the original parent at all? I'm simply arguing against omitting these countries altogether from the article.
 * Zoney 22:51, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I never spoke against mentioning places that geographically are not in Europe, but Gunners remark (I believe that 'Europe' should be defined in political terms, as there is no definate geographical border with Asia.) sounds like we should only use a political definition, which leaves us in a total mess. Actually the geographical definition, however random it is, is the only neutral one we have.
 * And it doesn't seem that easy to me: When Azerbaijan or the Transcaucasus in general is grouped with Europe, it's probably in ignorance of where the Caucusus is. Historically Azerbaijan was under hellenistic influence - as was Afghanistan or Syria, und under Soviet rule as was Tadjikistan. If we exclude it on reasons other than geographical, we are right into the Crusaders' mindset.
 * Ideal would be: Europe is a region in Western Eurasia that various people for various political reasons have been claiming as a continent. No one seems to know exactly where it is...:)Jakob Stevo 12:07, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I think that's OK, but the fact that the definition is not as simple as that should be mentioned, and that the given definition is geographical should be emphasised. Mr. Jones 22:53, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

I just expanded the list of independent states, mostly by adding information on memberships of various organizations, and of the use of the euro. I added more notes, for instance on microstates. Since the microstates are already a bit of a bordeline case on the matter of independence (for instance, can Monaco really be said to be independent, since it relies on France so heavily?) I thought that Kosovo, while a protectorate of the UN, should also be included, since it's certainly not being administered by its nominal parent country, Serbia, at the moment. Also, Serbia and Montenegro, while still formally part of a single states, are really in the final stages of divorce, so I saw fit to separate them into two states. Anyway, since these are all borderline cases, I've made a note of them in the expanded notes. Teemu Leisti 22:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I also have two lists I compiled last year, "European nations' inhabited exclaves, dependencies, overseas provinces and territories, areas outside the EU customs union, and other anomalies", and "European nations' uninhabited or only temporarily inhabited overseas islands, military bases, and Antarctic territories". I used quite a bit of time compiling the information from various sources. I'll add them to the article tomorrow or over the weekend, and then you can kick them around. How does that sound? Teemu Leisti 22:31, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * There's a new section in this talk page, "new table added to "independent states"" below, where I suggest we consolidate discussion on this issue. Teemu Leisti 22:59, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Map of Europe
I have added a map which displays all the nations of Europe, which seems much better than the previous map which didn't go far enough East. Grunners 00:58, 20 May 2004 (UTC)


 * That was Image:Europe.gif. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   15:12, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The previous one didn't go far enough, this one goes too far. *sigh* --Shallot 19:05, 21 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah and why is the map marked (C) GraphicMaps.com? Where's our license?
 * Further, why is Vojvodina singled out? --Shallot 19:21, 21 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Image:Physical Map of Europe.jpg (public domain) has been downloaded, but yet to be added. However, it is quite large, as I did not want to decrease quality, and it includes the name 'Kazakhstan' (although only that west of the Ural River is in Europe). P æ dia 07:03, 2004 May 24 (UTC)


 * That one's better, though I still modified the map because it spread too much to the east. Kazakhstan's portion of Europe is so peripheral that it doesn't really warrant the inclusion of the full country name at the expense of enlarging the map. I used GIMP's 95% quality setting and used progressive JPEG compression resulting in a noticably smaller image without a noticable loss of quality. --Shallot 21:32, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Shallot, thanks for your help. Cheers, P æ dia 19:28, 2004 Jun 12 (UTC)

Wasn't the consensus that the caucasian states were European? The EU and the council of Europe both describe these as European states. Grunners 02:22, 22 May 2004 (UTC)


 * No, there's no consensus that I can see. They are borderline on each definition I can think of. --Shallot 08:28, 22 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I can't see a consensus. Note: Europe in a geographical sense is a very neutral term. It's is not anti-anybody to exclude a country from Europe an that means. In opposite, it might be considered as Anti-Muslim to _include_ Turkey on grounds of what Atatürk dit to the countries islamic tradition! Jakob Stevo 12:48, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

In response to Vojvodina, I assume because the map shows the recognised auronomous nations of Europe, of which it is one, with a similar, if less troubled, status to Kosovo. Grunners 02:24, 22 May 2004 (UTC)


 * But Vojvodina is not an "autonomous nation", it's not even a nation, in both meanings of that word! Seems to me that you were too hasty to copy over the map from that web site. --Shallot 08:28, 22 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I'll think you'll find it has a degree of autonomy, and is likely to recieve more as ethnic tensions increase. Grunners 18:44, 22 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Kosovo and Vojvodina are nominally autonomous provinces within the current nation of Serbia and Montenegro. Perhaps someday, each will be a nation. Furthermore:
 * Abkhazia (and Ajaria) and Crimea (Avtonomna Respublika Krym) are autonomous republics of their respective nations.
 * Faroe Islands are part of the Kingdom of Denmark; the islands are a self-governing overseas administrative division of the nation of Denmark.
 * Gibraltar and Svalbard (and Jan Mayen) are territories of their respective nations.
 * Guernsey, Jersey, and Isle of Man are British crown dependencies of the nation of the U.K.
 * Kaliningrad (Kaliningradskaya), from what I have read, is not even autonomous but is one of 49 oblastey (administrative divisions) of the nation of Russia.
 * England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Island are more appropriately constituent units; political divisions; countries joined as the nation of the United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland).
 * P æ dia 17:55, 2004 May 24 (UTC)


 * The 'correct' (AFAIK) term for the constituent... areas of the UK are 'part' (according to some research by Morwen, I believe); presumably because there is no Act of Parliament defining Northern Ireland as a country and then an Act of Union therewith, but merely the once-country of Ireland which has now been split and part of it granted independence... Wales, Scotland, and England are all countries, though.
 * James F. (talk) 18:13, 24 May 2004 (UTC)


 * True, 'parts' is more correct than 'countries' by British sense, as Northern Ireland has no permanent parliament (suspended since October 2002), and hardly call themselves 'Northern Irish' but Irish.
 * Curiously, by American sense, Northern Ireland may be (incorrectly?) a country. See Northern Ireland and country.
 * P æ dia 15:29, 2004 May 25 (UTC)

Paedia claims that Jan Mayen and Svalbard are Norwegian territories. It is not correct. Jan Mayen Is. and Svalbard are both integrated parts of the Kingdom of Norway, and not territories which are not a part of the main body. Jan Mayen and Svalbard are politically to Norway as Rockall and Northern Ireland are to the United Kingdom. --Jakro64 20:32, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In response to Paedia, Serbia & Montenegro is a State, not a nation. Look up the definition of a nation, and you'll see that it doesnt need any political power, or even a boundary to exist, for example Kurdistan. A state however is a political body, which may contain several nations, such as the UK.

Links
Do we need that Eurabia link? If you follow it, in then it's first external Link, it's easy to work out what kind of a mindset that implies. (welch Geistes Kind I would say in German) Jakob Stevo 12:50, 22 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Agreed - SimonP 23:15, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

Caucasus and Transcaucasus
Cantus, how exactly do "Caucasus Mountains" and "partly" account for the inclusion of Armenia? Armenia can be considered only if Transcaucasus is considered, not just the mountain.--Shallot 00:05, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Armenia removed. I don't know what this country was doing in this list. It does not lie in geographic Europe under any definition. Its inclusion in Europe can only be for political reasons. Add it back if you like, but with the proper footer. --Cantus 23:14, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * No, I don't have any particular reason to add it back, I just want our explanations to be consistent. --Shallot 00:08, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * The Lesser Caucasus Mountains cover Armenia, so if Caucasus Mountains are the criterion for inclusion of Georgia and Azerbaijan, then Armenia should be included too. Politically all three Caucasian nations are part of Europe as members of the Council of Europe and of many other European organizations. They also participate in all European sports events, and have to struggle to qualify, for example, for the World Cup through European qualifiers. 66.93.60.191 08:57, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Going by merely strict geographic definitions does not result in NPOV. I.E. It's problematic because it ignores political realities. Now I know one could say that there's a problem that all sorts of places could be included. However, there is a general association of Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan with Europe. As there is the country of Turkey, the island of Cyprus. But not Greenland or Kazachstan (one can make arguments for those, but the general approach is on in N.America the other in Asia).
 * Are those who are wishing for omissions actually Europeans?
 * Zoney 11:08, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not hell-bent on the issue, but given how much /real/ association the rest of Europe has with the Caucasus I don't think you should be pointing at Cantus as if they were just another westerner lacking in insight. AFAICT, the whole area is historically associated to the places more commonly associated with "Europe" by virtue of being borderline: it was borderline for the Roman Empire, for the Ottoman Empire (which was itself marked alien to Europe at the time), for the Russian Empire. Even today, the prospect of political association with the rest of European countries into the Union is very bleak, regardless of whatever reasonably peripheral organizations they participate in. Placing the continental border at the Kuma-Manych depression doesn't seem particularly less valid than placing it on the Caucasus main range. And if we push it even further, to include Armenia, why not include all of Asia Minor then? That's a slippery slope. --Shallot 11:47, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I added a new table in section "Independent states". I hope the notes attached to the nations should satisfy the NPOV. There's a new section in this talk page, "new table added to "independent states"" below, where I suggest we consolidate discussion on this issue. Teemu Leisti 22:59, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

FYR Macedonia's name
I think we should use "FYR Macedonia" instead of "Republic of Macedonia" which is the self-declared constitutional name but which however isn't recognized by either UN, nor NATO, nor the EU, nor most countries in Europe.

If we cared only about self-declarations and not the broad recognition, shouldn't we also have countries like Transnistria included? And yet we don't, because they are not recognized.

Moreover FYR Macedonia is the most neutral name in the naming dispute -- the country itself wants to be named "Republic of Macedonia" so it would feel as taking its side if we use that name. On the other hand FYR Macedonia is seen by all sides as a temporary compromise name which pleases no side at all -- thus is inherently more neutral! :-)

But if consensus goes against me on this, then I'd atleast like a footnote added here mentioning that the name is disputed.

Aris Katsaris 02:43, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * This has already been discussed to death. See Talk:Republic of Macedonia (do you wonder why the country page is called Republic of Macedonia?). --Cantus 02:56, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * That one was an article about the country itself, so it made sense to use the name that the country uses to refer to itself. But this is an article about Europe, so it seems to me to make much more sense to use the name that most of Europe uses to refer to this country. Indeed I see that atleast one person made that same argument there, that in different articles (eg about member states of UN, NATO, etc), FYR Macedonia could be used. Aris Katsaris 03:13, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I think a prefix "FYR " or "R. of " is acceptable, it indicates that it's one particular Macedonia (and because it's a link, the viewers who wan't to find out more will click through and find out what's up). Long, explicated forms should be avoided in the interest of formatting cleanliness.
 * BTW most of Europe actually just caters to Greece when it adds these prefixes (they wouldn't add them at all normally, nobody cares for long names), which is fine really. :) --Shallot 12:19, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree - it's merely catering to Greece. If "Macedonia" is unacceptable, then just using FYR prefix is the most sensible. Zoney 12:40, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The mere prefix FYR is what I recommended also -- I certainly don't think the full expansion is desirable in such a listing. And yeah, though it's merely "catering to Greece" nonetheless that's the most widely recognized name, and I don't think it's Wikipedia's place to pass moral judgment on whether such "catering" should be occuring or not. Aris Katsaris 13:22, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Independent "Countries"
I amended this to the less contentious "states". Ireland, for example, is a state, but the state does not encompass an entire country (most of the country is in the Irish state, Éire/Ireland, the rest chose to remain part of the UK as Northern Ireland). The United Kingdom itself is a state, not a country. It encompasses three entire countries, England, Scotland and Wales, and part of a fourth, Ireland. Zoney 12:46, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Right, so now the United States, Mexico and Brazil are not countries? Completely ridiculous. By the way, it's spelt independent... sigh. --Cantus 14:41, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, your examples are ridiculous. My point is perfectly valid as regards the examples I have given - although, yes, the term country is often used for the United Kingdom and even the Republic of Ireland. I would take exception at Ireland being described as an "independent country". It's not - part of the country is not independent (by choice). Apologies on not picking up on the spelling - unfortunately I haven't yet memorised the spelling of every single word in the English language, or even the large amount of words in the commonly used subset!!!


 * My point is that there is NO possible disagreement about the use of the term "independent states" - because that is what is being listed. Zoney 14:57, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Also - can Vatican City for example be called a country? It's a state certainly, but country is stretching it... San Marino is somewhat borderline too. Apart from my disagreement about the status of Ireland, I just feel "state" is a simpler more accurate definition of what is being listed. Zoney 15:02, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to understand the definition of country. I'm reverting you. --Cantus 15:04, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * You have not explained why there is a problem with using "states". Is it or is it not the case that the list contains "states"? I on the other hand have detailed my problems with the use of the more ambiguous term "countries". Your dismissive attitude – it's not exactly very constructive to talk of "nonsense" and "ridiculous" – and resorting to little more than reversion is quite blunt and offensive. Zoney 15:13, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to join in the edit war, but for what it's worth, I'm with Cantus. State is too easily confused - for example, in the USA and Australia, it refers to a part of a country. The same was true of Yugoslavia before its break-up. I'm not sure whether it's the case anywhere in Europe currently, but what we're talking about here is countries, not states. Size is irrelevant, as are arguments about independence. The Republic of Ireland is a country; Northern Ireland is a part of another country. We might not all think that that's right, but at present it's a fact. Country is not an ambiguous term. --   ALargeElk | Talk 15:20, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The term "state" is not going to be confused here with Australian or US states, so that argument against it does not hold. Also, regardless of the perception in those countries, the definition of an "independent state" is well-recognised. (note the use of "independent")
 * Cantus, perhaps you would like to amend / start an edit war on the Country page?
 * The terms country, nation, state and land are often used as synonyms, but in a more strict usage they are distinguished:
 * country is the geographical area
 * Now, in this circumstance, country is not necessarily incorrect (the whole "often used as synonyms" bit). But it is a lot more ambiguous than "state" and not exactly NPOV where Ireland is concerned (due to the "independant" tag, and geographical issue). State is entirely correct and doesn't have to address the question of Ireland. Please note that though I am an Irish nationalist, I am not trying to introduce my POV, merely accommodate it. Zoney 15:25, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * (Outdented for readability) I've been doing a bit of reading around. I recommend the articles on country, state, nation, nation state, and if you really fancy it Montevideo Convention. Basically, there's going to be a bit of ambiguity whichever way we play it.


 * "Country" is going to be incorrect when talking about the United Kingdom - England, Scotland and Wales being countries in their own right. Spain may also be a problem. I'm not so sure about the situation with the island of Ireland, but I can certainly see that there might be arguments for calling it a country.


 * "State", however, also causes a certain amount of ambiguity: as far as Germany and Austria as concerned, as they have subdivisions which are commonly known as states (see State (non-sovereign)). However, all things taken into consideration, use of the term "state" seems more accurate. I'm heavily swayed by the first line of the state article:
 * "In international law and international relations, a state is a political entity possessing sovereignty, i.e. not being subject to any higher political authority."
 * In other words, I think I was wrong before - and am now sure enough about it to edit the article. --   ALargeElk | Talk 15:56, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Any ambiguity with using "state" is removed by the fact that the term "independent state" is being used. No one is going to be adding German Länder or unrepresented nationalities to a such-titled list.


 * "Serbia and Montenegro" is an independent state (though it may be called a country), but Serbia is a country, Montenegro is a country. Just another example. Zoney 16:04, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The ambiguity of the term country is exactly what is needed to address all of these different entities. Using state is too restrictive. --Cantus 16:06, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Have you read the state article? --   ALargeElk | Talk 16:09, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Your suggestion that ambiguity is needed would only apply if we removed the "independent" tag, and were listing England, Scotland, Wales, Basque, Brittany, Cornwall, Bayern + other German lands, etc., etc. That would be a never-ending list, and, as you'll note from the above, would contain names that others would wish to remove, or wouldn't see why they should be included. It would result in a very hairy situation.


 * All that is being listed is independent states. I have no problem with that, but wish to see it accurately labelled (primarily because one of the many inaccuracies involves my own country and state). Zoney 16:24, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Citing a Wikipedia article as the God-given truth is not going to help. --Cantus 16:20, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * If I didn't feel that a Wikipedia article was at least as good a source as Britannica or World Book, I wouldn't be here. --   ALargeElk | Talk 16:30, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

For your information, Britannica defines the United Kingdom as an island country and as country, Ireland as a country , and Serbia and Montenegro as a federated country. In non of these articles the word state is mentioned. Furthermore, World Book, in its Europe article, provides a link to a list of Independent countries in Europe. --Cantus 16:18, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * There have been many instances where people have taken exception to the unilateral editing decisions of the publications you have mentioned. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a copycat of the above sources - concensus should be reached here. It's certainly handy to refer to other practice, but it's not the be-all and end-all. Zoney 16:24, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And I never said it was, although the sheer weight of the aforementioned publications should be enough to convince anyone. --Cantus 16:32, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A geographical definition of Europe
[The Alphabets of Europe] defines Europe thus:
 * The Alphabets of Europe uses the following geographical and geophysical definition of Europe:
 * &ldquo;Europe&rdquo; extends from the Arctic and Atlantic (including Iceland and the Faroe Islands) southeastwards to the Mediterranean (including Malta and Cyprus), with its eastern and southern borders being the Ural Mountains, the Ural River, the Caspian Sea, and Anatolia, inclusive of Transcaucasia.
 * This report also includes languages found in the following areas:
 * Anatolian Turkey, Greenland
 * Information concerning the administrative units covered by this geographical definition can be found [here]. It is important to note that this is a geolinguistic survey. It is not a political survey. The area defined here may be seen on page xiv, &ldquo;Geographical Comparisons&rdquo;, in The Times Atlas of the World: comprehensive edition, 1990 (ISBN 0-7230-0346-7).


 * The following list enumerates the administrative units corresponding to the geographical definition of Europe in clause 1.1. This list was valid at the time of its compilation (1995-03-01). Spelling of entity names follows that given in ISO 3166-3.


 * The following countries and self-governing dependencies: Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan (including the autonomous republic of Naxçivan), Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Hercegovina, Bulgaria, the Channel Islands, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, the Faroe Islands, Finland (including Åland), France, Georgia (including the autonomous republics of Abkhazia and Ajaria and the Autonomous Region of South Ossetia), Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey (excluding Anatolia), Ukraine, the United Kingdom, the Vatican City, Yugoslavia (Crna Gora, Srbija, Kosovo-Metohija, and Vojvodina).


 * The following Republics in the Russian Federation: Adygea, Ba&scaron;kortostan, &#x010c;e&#x010d;enija, &#x010c;uva&scaron;ija, Dagestan, Ingu&scaron;etija, Kabardino-Balkarija, Kalmykija, Kara&#x010d;aj-&#x010c;erkesija, Karelija, Komi, Mari-El, [Mordvinija,] Severnaja Osetija, Tatarstan, Udmurtija.


 * The following oblasts in the Russian Federation: Arkhangel&#x02ca;sk (including the Nenets Autonomous Okrug), Astrahan&#x02ca;, Belgorod, Brjansk, Ivanovo, Jaroslavl&#x02ca;, Kaliningrad, Kaluga, Kirov, Kostroma, Kursk, Leningrad, Lipetsk, Moskva, Murmansk, Ni&#382;nij Novgorod, Novgorod, Orël, Orenburg, Penza, Perm&#x02ca; (including the Komi-Permjak Autonomous Okrug), Pskov, Rostov, Ryazan&#x02ca;, Samara, Saratov, Smolensk, Tambov, Tula, Tver&#x02ca;, Ul&#x02ca;janovsk, Vladimir, Volgograd, Vologda, Vorone&#382;.


 * The following krais in the Russian Federation: Krasnodar, Stavropol&#x02ca;. Evertype 19:05, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)


 * This is very interesting. However it is not strictly geographical (ie. Russia). Still very interesting though. --Cantus 19:52, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It is geographical, though. That's what's at the top, and if you look there is a map on the Alphabets of Europe page, taken from the Times Atlas of the World. What follows then is a listing of the political units which happen to fall within that geographical definition. I think this definition is fairly sound, myself.


 * What I mean is that some regions will overlap with the geographical border. --Cantus 21:04, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Not very much, really. As you can imagine, trying to determine what "Europe" is for the purposes of the alphabet project was somewhat contentious. But the definition we came up with is, I think, accurate geographically; the political divisions are informative. Yes, a few of those political areas leak over the Urals a bit, but there's not much better one can do, is there?

Etymology of "Europa"
Every line as this brief section currently stands is factually incorrect or misleading.

Could we start fresh, building from this (please edit and add): In Homer, the name Europa (Greek: &#917;&#965;&#961;&#974;&#960;&#951;) was limited to the mythic Phoenician princess who was abducted by Zeus. Later "Europa" took on a geographical meaning. Thus the Roman historian Tacitus describes the site of Byzantium Namque arctissimo inter Europam Asiamque divortio Byzantium in extrema Europa posuere Greci (Annales xii. 63). ...Wetman 22:01, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. The Semitic stuff is silly. But for "was limited to the mythic" read "referred to the mythological". And if you're going to be stodgy enough to quote the Latin, give the English translation (easy though that Latin may be). Evertype 23:56, 2004 Jul 22 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the "semitic stuff is silly". Of course, the actual origin of the name "Europe" is "Europa". Anyways, I read also in another source that Assyrian inscriptions were found with references to "ereb" (the land of sunset, the West", and "asu" (the land of sunrise, the East). And it's commonly held as true that the name Asia comes from "asu", or possibly to another Sanskrit word with similar meaning. So, given that the idea of Europe arose among the Greeks as a distinction between themselves and the East (especially the Persian Empire), the contrast between "asu" and "ereb" - East and West - doesn't seem to me so silly a topic. --Fabio Strada
 * I could not find any arabic word called "ereb" meaning "sunset". Sunset is "gharoob", today still being used for "west". It is less close to "europe" in pronounciation, but still a possible source for the name in my opinion. Erdal Ronahi 01:01, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * That would be folk etymology, methinks. Evertype 21:04, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)

related discussion about the list of countries
... is at Template talk:Europe. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;

"(or the Emba River in other definitions)"
The article in its current state seems rather nagging to me. I would really like to see the repetitive remarks on alternative definitions be centralized and just mentioned at one place. --Ruhrjung 20:13, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)


 * Relegating an alternative definition to a different section would be POV. --Cantus 20:41, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * Both of you, please tell me what you think of my last edit. I don't think there's a POV problem with distinguishing between the definite borders (e.g. Atlantic and Mediterranean) and the not-quite-certain ones. Aris Katsaris 21:27, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Calculate european and non-european areas of cross-continent countries
[...and some other geographical topics (about other continents and/or subjects somehow related to this comment)]
 * about "Europe"-page

in Europe/Asia (described on the "Europe" page): - Russia - Turkey - Kazakhstan - Georgia - Azerbaidjan in Asia/Africa - Egypth (mentioned both on Asia and on Africa pages) in North America/South America - Panama (mentioned only on North America, but I think that it should have some South American territory too - if not, then Columbia should have some North American territory - becouse it is highly unlikely that former colony or current state borders are drawed EXATLTY on purely geographical continent borders)
 * (1) There are some countries that lie on two continents:

can someone calculate the area on each continent separatly, for example: "Russia has xxx sq.km territory west of the Ural mountains and north of the main watershed of the Caucasus and also another xxx sq.km territory east of the Ural mountains and south of the main watershed of the Caucasus"

this sentences should be added to the "Geography" section in the descriptions of these countries and maybe also in the table with basic facts the section "Area" should have three lines: "total", "in xxx continent", "in yyy continent".

Similar calculations based on continent borders can be done for population too (but I think such statistical data is not easly availible).


 * (2) Has Georgia territory north of the main watershed of the Caucasus? (for Azerbaidjan it is obvious that it has) If so, does Russia have territory SOUTH of the main watershed of the Caucasus? If so, then this is russian ASIAN territory WEST of the Ural mountains. So it should be included to the asian area in sq.km and not in the european...


 * (3) Kazakhstan, Azerbaidjan, etc. are missing from the map with colors (regions map) for north, south, central, etc. europe (at Europe-page)


 * (4) also more about what can be considered "european" - in the list of dependencies Greenland is missing (it is clearly a "North American island", but politicaly it is as much european as Armenia and maybe Cyprus - so it should be added in the appropriate lists with a note - just like Armenia and/or Cyprus)
 * about "Vatican City"-page


 * (5) at the bottom of the Vatican City page (and maybe other pages) there is a link-list "countries of europe" - but this list does not correspond to the correct list (link at the top of this message) - Kazakhstan is missing, but Turkey and Russia are there (all three are geographicaly cross-continent); Cyprus is there, but Armenia is missing (both are geographicaly asian and politicaly european)
 * about Africa/Namibia/South Africa


 * (6) Is it sure that "Walvis Bay" is integrated into Nambia in 1994? AmiGlobe 2002 and 1998 show it as South African enclave??
 * about "Asia"-page


 * (7) search for "Asia" and in the table with countries Cyprus is missing (maybe becouse it is island) - this should be fixed (maybe with a note that it also is regareded as european country for xxx reasons - see the "Europe"-page) in the same table - area for Turkey mentions the whole area of Turkey, including european part. Maybe this should change or at least be noted. Other cross-continent countries have similar ommissions maybe?
 * about North/South america


 * (8) Panama is icluded only in the list of North American countries and is missing from the list of South American countries.


 * A better reference is the Council of Europe membership. You will see that political Europe doesn't stop at the Urals or the Bosphorus. And walk down the street in Novosibirsk, theyou will see more irish pubs and pizzerias than chinese restaurants. In fact there is nothing asiatic there. --Pgreenfinch 13:12, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't object the list (and espicialy its footnotes) of european/non-european countries that is currently on the Europe page. I only ask about the area in sq.km. on each continent. So, Armenia and Cyprus will have "area on europe: 0%, area on asia: 100%, european becouse of cultural, historical reasons", but it is more interesting about Turkey, Russia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaidjan - they all have both european and asian territory and I ask just about the figure in % or in sq.km. Georgia is unknown for me - they are eighter as Armenia and Cyprus or as Turkey, Russia, etc. - I don't know, so I ask - see my comment (2)


 * I think the specific percentages will be arbitrary, as there exists arbitrariness and uncertainty in the borders themselves -- in "Geography and extent" check out the thing about the southeastern boundaries in Europe. Moreover, in regards to Cyprus, I'm not so sure what the point is of saying that a certain island is 100% in one continent or another. As an island, geographically it doesn't belong to either continent's mass, except that it may be grouped with one of them through proximity. Both phrasing and concept sounds bad to me. In which case for example could an island's territory be divided between two continents to start using percentages about it? In that case "proximity to Europe" and "proximity to Asia" might be better indicators.


 * Either way this might get rather crowded, if all this information is added, especially if we start adding population percentages as well... Aris Katsaris 19:56, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that population percentages would be nice (even on another page or whatever format is best suited for the place), but hard to get, so I don't insist on them :)
 * I agree about islands belonging to a continent too - it is self-explanatory that they belong 100% to one, another or no one continent. Also I agree, that if another number should be given - that should be distance to the continents (but counted where - on the smallest distance or between center of the island and nearest shore of the continent, or between center of the continent and nearest shore of the island, etc. - very disputable). So, let's just use the current formulation on the Europa page (the list of countries) - Cyprus is asian, Malta is european, Iceland is european, Greenland is North American.
 * I don't agree about land borders - it seems like there is some consensus about them - again in the very good list at Europa page - Turkey is very easily divided - by the Sea. Armenia - no european territory, just cultural and historical links (100% asian territory). Russia - west of the Ural mountains, Ural river and north of the Caucaus watershed - european, the other - asian. Kazakhstan - west of the Ural/Emba river [OK, dispute, but let's just start with Ural and maybe later if the area number change significantly - add the other option of Emba] - european, other - asian. Azerbaidjan, Georgia - north of the Caucaus watershed - european, other - asian.


 * The problems (for me to calculate the area) are just technical - The Sea dividing Turkey is clearly visible on the maps. I can also see the Ural river on the maps. But I can't figure out exatctly where are the WATERSHEDs of the Caucaus and Ural mountains. But this is an easy question about EVERY mountain in the world, so geographers and similar people can answer it WITHOUT any dispute. Even if I draw these lines somehow I get to another problem - the total areas of the countries are known, but I don't know a method to calculate the area left and right of some line (even if a stright one) - this is again an easy task for cartography people.

independent states

 * about the changing of the Czechz Republic name - recently someonie changed it to Czechia, but by the talk archives it looks like this problem was already solved - it were Czechia before, but later the two sides agreed that it should be Czech Republic, correct? Si, I reverted it to the agreed state. Anyhoo - when someone makes such changes - he should at least state (it the talk page) why does he do so... My personal opinion ons the case is that for unknown reasons some countries are called ons -ia (Albania, Romania, Bulgaria, Armenia, ...), but Czechia is not - I have seen it with this spelling VERY VERY rarely (in my native language, not Czech, it is called Czechia, but so are also Germany - Germania, France - Francia, etc. - This is the english Wikipedia, (which rocks) so we shouldnt use the name that english-language official documents use - like english-version of the EU treatryies, other international treatries, etc. correct?)
 * about the Montenegroin referendum - that has no place in the list of independent states - after the referendum is made and if Montenegro gets out of Serbia-and-Montenegroin - then the list should be corrected. Currently the referendum issue should be put on the Serbia-and-Montenegroin and on the Montenegroin pages. Also, if we start adding such issues in the list we should add "Kosovo", "Northern Cyprus", any-not-so-far-recognized-entitiy... Now, I checked the S-i-M page and the Montenegro page and on the both pages the 2006 possible referendums were mentioned.

east boundaries
Paedia edited my correction in the first sentence on the Europa page - at first it states that "on the south Europe is bounded by the Black Sea, on the east Europe is bounded by the Ural mountains". Becouse the Ural mountains and the Black sea have NO COMMON POINT - the whole south-east sector is omitted in this first sentence... That is why I added "to the east by the Ural mountains, the Emba river, the Caspian Sea and the Caucaus mountains" - this way I linked the Ural mountains to the Black Sea. Then Paedia removed Caucaus mountains and Emba river. OK, It looks like Emba river is not very well recognized by the community here (I have checked one geography book from before 1990 - when the Soviet Union was covering all that area and there is stated that Emba river is the east boundary, but anyway) - Ural river is prefered instead. It looks as there is no problem with the Caucaus mountains and most people recognizes them as the south border. Anyway the current sentence states "south: Black Sea, east: Ural mountains and Caspian Sea" - but there are two missing links: between Caspian and Black sea; between Ural mountains and Caspian Sea. So I will edit it again and add the less controversing Ural river and Caspian mountains.
 * OK, I checked the Geography page and there everything here is described already, so I will revert my editing

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
 * To my knowledge, other non-european cultures do not consider Europe to be a continent. For example, the Russian language article on Europe calls it part of Eurasia. We should have interlanguage consistancy on Wikipedia. Seabhcán 14:47, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

regions map
I will upload a new regions map (coresponding to the lists of independent states and dependent territories in the article). But maybe it should be chopped to cover less of the ocean, north africa, asia, etc. Also maybe the size of the legend letters should be made bigger. Put "european_political_map_(chopped).png" for smaller version covering less of africa, asia, etc.
 * Cantus, what do you mean by "map isn't visible"? Also, should not Monaco and Corsica belong to "south", not "west"?Alinor 10:28, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Becouse there is no answer, I will put again the updated map (with _ in the filename - maybe that is the reason for it not to be visible?). I will also Monaco to be part of the South Region and add Corsica to the phrase "Southern France culturaly can be included" without coloring it for south.
 * When Cyprus and Armenia are defined as "states, that are geographicaly in Asia, but considered part of Europe becouse of cultural and historical reasons" - then should we add Greenland as "dependency, that is geographicaly in North America, but considered part of Europe becouse of cultural and historical reasons"? On the map are also visible Ceuta and Melia - Spain territories on the north coast of Africa/Morocco... Alinor 11:51, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Greenland
I may be revealing my own ignorance, but if Cyprus and Armenia can be considered part of Europe "for cultural and historical reasons," why does Greenland not fall under this category?--Dmcdevit 23:50, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Because it is on the North American plate. (I don't see any reason to exclude Armenia from geographic Europe in any case.) Evertype 21:03, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
 * I am also a 50/50 about including Greenland with "dark pink" like Armenia&Cyprus...