Talk:Europe/Archive 6

Kosovo
Hello, Excuse my knowledge for English and wikipedia, but can somebody edit Kosovo in the new Europe? Kosovo is now an independence country. The map should be changed, and Kosovos flag should be added with the other countries.

Thank You for the understanding, I'll hope you'll take this to your consideration.

Europe Vs. Asia
I do not see why EUrope and Asia have to be two seperate continents. It makes no sense! They are conected together by land and water. Some of the cultures are the same in both continents. it is all so confusing!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.162.225 (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Its more to with cultural differences than geographics ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.186.204 (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You can always propose that the articles on Europe and Asia be merged. Bonne chance, Mathsci (talk) 09:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The vast consensus - academic, governmental and public - is that they're separate continents. We reflect that consensus. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If we were getting into the whole 'but they're connected by land and sea' business then one could easily say that Africa, Asia and Europe are all one continent because they are situated on one landmass. I think that the point mentioned above is valid, both continents are seperated by distinct cultural and religious differences. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

As ever, stupid points. Culture does not follow geographic lines. You are insulting more than 4, 000, 000, 000 people by saying things like Syria has the same culture as Japan. Or that Norway has the same culture as Albania. There is no such thing as 'Asia'. And there is no such thing as 'Europe'. Can you even name me one single thing that the Norweigans and the Greeks, or the Tajiks and the Japanese share in common, to bring them under such a sweeping and extremist label as 'Europe' or 'Asia'? The whole thing is a political illusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.65.242.154 (talk) 07:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the current ongoing position, and the lack of identification, looks like a sockpuppet to me. Perhaps best to ignore. Mariya - x ---Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

United Kingdom and German Economy
I think that it should be mentioned that the economies of the United Kingdom and Germany frequently swap positions as the biggest economies in Europe, suggesting that both are equally powerful, which is the case. The current wording suggests otherwise.. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Will change that.  Harland1 (t/c) 13:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What are you two talking about? The German economy is for a very long time, starting way before this country reunificated, the largest EU economy. Not at all are they frequently swapping this leadership position with the UK. Did you perhaps refer to France and the UK swapping their respective positions? Tomeasy (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry see what you mean. And actually the UK and France haven't swapped for a long before this year, the Uk is almost always larger.  Harland1 (t/c) 16:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Autonomies of European countries
Talking about Europe in the political sense means referring to the political units of which Europe is comprised. The European countries are sometimes no simple political entities but include autonomies of various degrees, the inclusion of which in such an article about Europe is essential. It is true some of these autonomies are geographically not in Europe (as is actually true of some non-autonomous European territories as well like Lampedusa in Italy or Madeira in Portugal), but the inhabitants of these territories enjoy special relations with Europe with so many European conventions including them (e.g. they are entitled to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights) that I find it necessary to include this list here, which by the way is not redundant since it is found nowhere else on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.60.134 (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I, and apparently others, disagree: this is an excessive list which adds little value to the article and should not be included. In your prior edit comment, you assert "People living in these territories hold a European passport" – actually, no: they hold EU passports, and the EU is not synonymous with Europe (e.g., Switzerland). Your comment, thus, reveals something very different.  This is an article about the continent of Europe, not the EU and or those territories not in Europe that may or may not have affiliation with it – otherwise, why don't we include Canada?  Alternatively, can you produce a reputable list of European constituents that harks of yours?
 * Anyhow, if you feel strongly about including such a list, create a new article and link to it from this one. Also note that you are at risk of violating Wikipedia's three-revert rule, and you will be reported if you violate it and continue to make edits against consensus. Quizimodo (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time and answering me. This article is about Europe in general, not only on its geography but on its history, culture, politics and so on. Talking about European countries you cannot deny the fact that some citizens of these countries (regardless of whether or not they are EU citizens) live in autonomous areas some of which are outside Europe, but are still citiziens of a European country and hence covered by some European laws: the Bologna Process, coventions of the Council of Europe and so on. They are therefore fundamentally related to Europe in a very different sense than Canada. This is also true for territories not part of the EU at all (like some autonomies of Russia). Being geographically strict about the inclusion/disjunction of some territory in relation to Europe is certainly relevant if you discuss European geography, not if you discuss its politics. As your warning is relevant (although it is only and another editor against my view, not a general concensus as you said) I'll follow your advice although I would still find it better if such a list were accessible to all interested in European politics, looking for a general article about Europe. It is also important to mention these autonomies in this context in order to give them some internet representation which is usually missing in such general discussions where only big nationalities, strong enough to have gained independence in the past, get coverage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.60.134 (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There are far too many things about Europe to include in this one summary article: for example, perhaps we should add reams more of text concerning centuries of Europe's history? That would definitely be more deserving than this (IMO) inchoate list of territories which has little purpose.  I cite Canada because it also has strong European underpinnings: after all, its official languages are English and French, is a Commonwealth realm and was a British dominion, and it did not acquire its own bill of rights until 1982.  Some Aboriginal Canadians still assert last resort to the British Privy Council regarding land claims and self-government issues.  So, in other words, what criteria is your list based on?
 * As for consensus: actually, two other editors have removed your list, so there does not appear to be a consensus supporting its inclusion here. Again, perhaps create a germane article and add to it, and add appropriate links.  In any event, I have reported your transgression – if you self-revert the list, I will retract the report. Quizimodo (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think my criteria are pretty clear. Canada is an independent country. I agree Canada shows some special links to the UK which is a European country, but Canadian nationals are normally in no possession of a European passport (a passport of a European country). Neither are they part to any European convention. On the contrary, Saint Pierre and Miquelon near Canada (which are undisputably located in America) whose citizens are French nationals who are entitle to vote for the French presidency. Many French laws as well as some EU laws apply to them. They are entitled to move to Metropolitan France without the need for a visa. France represents them at the European National Bank and at the Council of Europe and they are regarded as Europeans by the Eurpean Court of Human Rights - all of this in complete contrary to a country like Canada. As to redunancy - I found this list nowhere else on Wikipedia. As to relevance - I think this list is politically as relevant to Europe as the list of countries in Europe. These autonomies are either in Europe geographically or belong to a European country, hence European politically. This is pretty straight forward. I agree it is important to distinguish those territories which belong to Europe politically but are somewhere else geographically, but I made this distinction clear enough I think. As to accuracy - I included all and only autonomous territories of European countries exluding the uninhabited territories of France, Denmark and UK - which are of marginal significance in such a list I think. Otherwise, I included all autonomies recognized by the countries themselves and defined so by their laws. The only exceptions as I stressed at the introduction are Northern Cyprus and Transnistria, both de facto independent, though not recognized by other countries (apart from Turkey for Northern Cyprus). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.60.134 (talk) 02:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your first sentence says it all: your criteria are not ones which I nor various others share. This list is of little relevance, and doesn't pertain to Europe.  There may be a reason why such a list doesn't exist in Wikipedia:  it is an original one, without cited basis.  I previously suggested that you create such a list and link to it from this article; however, given the above, such an action may be met with a call to delete it if it isn't enhanced or reputably sourced.  Quizimodo (talk) 04:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

List of Autonomous areas and dependencies compromising quality of this article
This list that keeps being inserted should not be in the article for quite a few reasons. First, it's unnecessarily cluttering this long article with information that is already covered in detail on many other articles such as List of autonomous areas by country. Second, the list is quite inaccurate. Just to mention a few inaccuracies: Serbia is lacking Vojvodina; Portugal isn't even listed despite its two autonomous regions; The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska are neither considered autonomous regions nor dependencies; "Åland" is written with an "Å"; Spain's mentioned autonomous communities may have a somewhat higher level of autonomy than the others, but all still belong to the same subdivision group so they shouldn't be there; Azerbaijan has Nakhichevan as an autonomous region, not Nagorno-Karabakh; etc (I could go on forever, really). List is definitely inappropriate and so shall be removed as redundant and inaccurate research. Hús ö  nd  02:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree wholeheartedly – see prior section. Quizimodo (talk) 04:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, I didn't notice the above section apparently. Hús  ö  nd  04:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Discussion does not justify unilateral blanking. How can we discuss on something you made disappear? In my opinion the fact that you find dispersed information in other article does not preclude to have a synthesis somewhere, and it seems to me that this article is the most relevant place. And how to correct inaccuracy if everything is blanked ? That section has to be reinstated first, then we have a basis for serious discussion. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 09:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You may check the history and preview an earlier version of the article in order to see the list. Hús  ö  nd  14:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Poor answer, try better. Tell me how readers who do not see the list because you blanked it will come to discuss about it? So, please reinstate that list. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Better answer? Try below, keywords: "original research" and "flaws". Hús  ö  nd  18:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, now try "encyclopedia". Also, I always thought that in WP we were in a cooperative mode, thus, if you saw some flaws, the obvious thing would have been - I will use keywords - to "correct" them thanks to your expertise instead of "blanking" massively a full informative section. Another thing is about original research, I don't see how it applies here as you said yourself that those items are covered in other articles. In what those who made a list of them (btw, I don't know them, so much for the stockpuppetry rumor by Quizimodo) did something original? So again, please reinstate that section, that I found very informative, thanksfully with all corrections and precisions that you think would help readers. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not reinstating it, me and another editor have already explained why should it not be on the article. Original research applies here as it's obvious that the list was an incomplete, inaccurate research about autonomous regions and dependencies of European countries. I should note that "inaccurate" and "informative" aren't good friends (particularly on an encyclopedia). Nonetheless, you are right that the section could be corrected instead of simply removed, but I don't see any advantages for this article brought by the inclusion of an accurate list of autonomous regions. Articles are not supposed to have all conceivable information that is slightly pertinent to them, that's why we split big articles. The autonomous regions are thoroughly described in many other articles, the list would just clutter this one. It's like adding info on the presidents of all European states, population, area, GDP, etc.. All covered elsewhere. Hús  ö  nd  22:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean you are going to start a specific article? Good idea as I don't know any that assemble all those interesting information, which are quite dispersed. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * See List of autonomous areas by country. All the info on the removed list is there, except that it's accurate and free of POV. Hús  ö  nd  23:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that article has a different approach, is much less informative and does not refer to Europe. Is Europe a singularity that does not fit WP correctness ? That would be POV. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 07:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1)I would also add that there is a big difference between including information about GDP, population, current presidents ect. (which, by the way, I would find relevant and useful in this article) to including the list we are discussing: firstly, some people do not know exactly how areas relevant to Europe are interrelated and will not know where to look for. This makes a difference compared to all other data you mentioned which all readers can retrieve easily by looking them up under the specific country they are interested at. Of course, this is indeed possible by looking up either the relevant subdivision of a specific country or under the name of the autonomy itself, but this is a much more complicated procedure since not everyone knows what belongs where.Secondly, as I already elaborated before, history, population ect. normally apply to a certain country and the country entries are made available through the list of countries. This is again fundamentally different from the list I suggest because for the autonomies and dependencies no such entry is made available in this article.
 * 2)I agree there's a basic problem in an encylopedia not written by experts, but that's what Wikipedia is all about. Again, I admit there are inaccuracies in the list, but such imperfections should be tolerated and seen as a basis for improvement, not as a reason for blanking. Only in this way, can the encyclopaedia grow and flourish. The aforementioned list of autonomies is also incomplete (e.g. the Sami Domicile Area is not mentioned under Finland although it is a recognized autonomy there). Should I delete the entire article due to this? This doesn't seem to be a productive way to go about things. This is even true for traditional encyclopaedias edited by experts since they can never reach perfection either.
 * 3)I do not argue about definitions because this is doomed to bear no fruit. When I refer to "politically European" it may not be a well established term, but neither is it meant as such (or for that matter, as a product of an original research). As said before, I simply mean those civilians of European countries living outside of Europe (excluding emmigrents of course). These are nationals of European counrties, hence European (but only in the political sense). I can't see what might be controversial about that. There's nothing requiring interpretation here. The European countries themselves relate to these people as their nationals.
 * 4)As specified by Pgreenpinch before, if the list is based on other articles in Wikipedia it isn't much of an original research anyway, but only another way of grouping things together. The appropriate questions should be whether this list is coherent, relevant and accurate (my answer to the first two questions is yes, to the third one no - but this can be improved).
 * 5)As to the innaccuracies Husond pointed out in his contribution - I accept the corrections for Portugal and Serbia. The spelling of Aland requires a sign I don't have on my computer, but this spelling is also accepted by Wikipedia itself since many users don't know how to find the relevant sign. I agree there are problems regarding the political units of Spain and Bosnia. As said, the national regions in Spain enjoy a higher level of autonomy than the others, what might justify specifying them apart from the rest. This is at least worth discussing. Republika Srpska is certainly an autonomy (ansering the definition given in Wikipedia). Of course, you can argue the definition I apply isn't right, but this brings nothing. It would be helpful to discuss whether this is the best definition to serve us dealing with the objects we speak about. Nagorno-Karabach is included in Wikipedia as an autonomous area. Footnotes may prove helpful in such (partially controversial) cases as this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AAD213.47.60.134 (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree there are inaccuracies, but also agree it is a reason to correct them, not to remove the section entirely. It might be a good idea to add brief information as to the legal status of the listed areas, as well as the current population. Notwithstanding inaccuracies, I do think a list of all areas whose inhabitants are nationals of a European country should be at least mentioned in an article discussing Europe (again in the political sense), not only those either residing in Europe, or those who happen to have acquired independence in the course of history. A (better and more comprehensive) list of autonomies somewhere else on Wikipedia is not specific to Europe, hence lacking when it comes to describing Europe. One could also add a short elaboration as to how these various autonomies (as well as dependencies) are politically considered European to a certain extent at least. As to the criteria of inclusion, such criteria are always decided subjectively. It is important though to make them convincingly meaningful and relevant on the one hand (which is one reason to discuss the list), and salient to the reader on the other hand (which may be a reason to change the format, add relevant information, ect.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.60.134 (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * All about autonomies, territories and dependencies is already thoroughly covered in the articles about those regions, countries that they belong to, lists of autonomous regions, subdivisions, etc. And there's no such thing as "politically European" for autonomous regions and dependencies located in other continents. In fact, there's no such thing as "politically European" in the first place. You see, this is unnecessary original research with evident flaws. Naturally it is not material for this article. Hús  ö  nd  14:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In response briefly to supporters of this list: actually, Europe is a singularity that, with cited definitions, fits WP 'correctness' – a number of those definitions are here, another here. Can you point us to one reputable source which includes these autonomous territories in its definition of the European continent? (And, by that, I don't mean the EU, Council of Europe, et al, which are not the same as Europe ... just as North America is not NAFTA, America is not the OAS, etc.) Regardless, this list is excessive and original, and in its prior or recent incarnation doesn't belong in this article as such. Quizimodo (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Noone claims the EU or Council of Europe are synonimous to Europe. Noone is claiming that Greenland is in Europe (or for that sake Cyprus). The difinitions supplied above are all geographic. If Europe is only referred to in a geographic sense then there's no reason to include the list of European countries at all. If you reason to include a certain territory is its complete inclusion in Europe you confuse geography with politics/history. If France is defined as a European country (as it normally is) then all its nationals should be mentioned including those residing outside Europe. Otherwise, you should stress that you don't refer to the entire country but only to a part of it, something I don't find of great importance when discussing political affiliations. That no source includes the list is no reason to avoid it here. The only question we are propmtly discussing is whether the list makes sense here and how to edit it if it does. Whether others found it suitable to include such a list in this context is actually irrelevant. AAD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.60.134 (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, you claimed this in one of your prior edit summaries, when indicating that said individuals had European passports, which of course is incorrect: they have EU passports. And please note that some sources do include Cyprus in Europe  (perhaps because it is in the EU), but I digress.
 * Anyhow, '[t]hat no source includes the list' is precisely the reason why it doesn't belong here: since it is original research, by your own admission, it will be removed on that basis alone. As the article indicates upfront, this article is about the European continent (subcontinent, peninsula), not about what some believe it to be beyond those notions which are reputably sourced. Quizimodo (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As for me, I don't understand Quizimodo remark and I think 213XXX has a point. Yes, there are conventional definitions of Europe, which by the way is not a real continent but a subcontinent. To define it as a continent, as commonly done, including by international organizations is quite a political aspect, so why deny it?. Another thing, I'm sure readers (including me) would be interested to have the same list for other continents or subcontinents, whatever their political ties.
 * Nothing is being denied, but you nor the IP have proven why this inchoate, incomplete, original list should be included here. Quizimodo (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems you didn't read my proposal below that answers all that. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did: if you choose to create a new article with list, that's your prerogative. I'll comment again at that point.  But, for now, this fuzzy, original list will not be placed in this article.
 * As well, your reckoning of vandalism is malformed and rather different from the established reckoning. So, if you wish to edit in a 'cooperative' manner and get buy-in, comment more judiciously.  Quizimodo (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don'tfind really judicious to mutilate an article and considering it is not vandalism and to criticize a section and doing nothing to improve it. Sorry if I find that not really cooperative. What I never saw was any attempt by you to bring a solution to satisfy readers who deserve information. Hope you are going to reconsider, for the sake of the encyclopedia. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I previously suggested a number of ways of moving forward: unfortunately, despite discussion, NO sources have been provided to justify including this list. Reasons provided since then have not been compelling.  So, if you or others can't or won't provide sources in a co-operative manner – as requested and required, for our collective scrutiny and for the sake of the encyclopedia – and continue to 'mutilate' the article, any such content will be removed.  That's it.  Quizimodo (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You certainly are an expert in geography, and I have respect for experts, but you still don't do anything to show you can bring information on the topic for the benefit of readers, only taking refuge behind a "collective scrutiny". Are you sure this is positive? Would not your contribution make things progress more, and be more appreciated, than your "scrutiny" ? Really, I don't understand! --Pgreenfinch (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Now let us get practical, and let us find a positive solution, not a destructive one like blanking, which I consider vandalism as it does not correct and improve anything but suppress information for fuzzy reasons (whence my wondering about some political correctness behind them). Therefore do we:
 * move this list to another article ? With corrections, here we need the experts that took part in that discussion, hope we can count that they take now a more positive approach.
 * or make it a specific one. Why not, that might give room for more precisions.
 * or keep it in the place that seems to me the most appropriate at the moment - but I'm flexible - the Europe article ?
 * Hoping for a wikipedian cooperative attitude on that matter.
 * --Pgreenfinch (talk) 09:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to refer you all to what I newly wrote above (five paragraphs) in response to Husond. AAD
 * *Sigh* Blanking a section is not destructive (and even less it is vandalism) as long as the content is being removed for well justified reasons, which it was. We don't need to "move" the list to another article because any accurate content it had (and there wasn't much of that) is already covered elsewhere in lists created by users with expertise in European administrative divisions, autonomies, dependencies, etc. As for 213.47.60.134's paragraphs above:
 * 1)The fact that you would find relevant the inclusion of rather absurd examples I gave - GDP, population, current presidents - reveals that you do not quite understand the notion of the size articles are meant to have. We could write thousands of pages of material related to Europe, and yet it would be absurd for that massive content to be included in this article altogether. For extensive subjects such as "Europe", we refrain from providing lengthy sections or details. Instead, we create other articles about those sub-subjects.
 * 2)Wikipedia is written by experts as it is by non-experts. You are most welcome to make any changes you believe would benefit the project, but when users with expertise in the matter review those changes you must understand that your changes may not be deemed fit sometimes. Have the Sami Domicile Area you mentioned, for instance. It's not an autonomous region, it just has some degree of autonomy on certain matters (which is very different than being an actual autonomous region). By inserting a list with material that is not correct, you must expect other users to remove it.
 * 3)This article is about Europe as a continent. Even Cyprus (a country that belongs to the E.U. and whose people are considered European) was left out because it's geographically located in Asia. Broadening the scope of this article out of its primary geographical space is stepping outside the subject itself and therefore it's not appropriate.
 * 4)The list was not coherent, not relevant (to this article), and we can all agree that it was not accurate.
 * 5) "Å" can be written with any keyboard, you will find that letter at the bottom of the page every time you edit an article (there's a section with diacritics and special characters). This "might justify" inclusion of those particular Spanish autonomous communities is just your point of view. As was most of the list. And again, Republika Srpska has autonomy, but it's not an autonomous region of a country. Etc. You see, you are elaborating a list about a concept that you need to learn more about. Not appropriate for inclusion. Not even appropriate for discussion, as for discussing something you are expected to know about it beforehand. Hús  ö  nd  23:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to say it, but again I don't see any will to cooperate in your observations. No attempt to improve things, only elimination. Just a symptom of a more general cancer that has been progressively striking wikipedia and making it lose its initial cooperative goals. I find this immensely sad and negative. This might be subjective from me, but what is objective is that I don't see how the encyclopedia will be seen relevant by future readers, who will expect something better than a repetition of formal courses by a nucleus of territory holders, without looking at the world as it exists. No need to answer, You can close the door with a "sigh" if you are not interested. I will not persist, the test is now done. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 09:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I sighed not because I think that what you say deserves any kind of contempt, but simply because I'm not fond of repeating my arguments over and over again. You are more than welcome to present your opinions, I'm not bothered by them. But I think you are wrong both in your arguments and in your apparent frustration. Hús  ö  nd  13:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, who is right and who is wrong, and more important the future of WP, will depend whether it keeps attracting contributors and readers. I'm just pessimistic. Things are moving fast on the Internet. So long, it was a pleasure. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 15:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Plans to address declining fertility
Hello, I am looking for information on what government or private projects are doing to counter the declining fertility in the continent, if there are any efforts like this at all. — Adriaan (T★C) 14:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly not a problem in the UK. Population rising at a fairly rapid rate for an long-established, developed country. Caused by a mixture of increasing lifespan, and net inward migration - most recently from Eastern Europe (notably Poland).--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Turkey
The article is unclear on the inclusion of Turkey. Currently Turkey has applied for admission into the European Union, and the article should reflect at least one sentence regarding this. NotNe1Normal (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I see how it's unclear, see footnote n for example. Turkey is generally considered to be in both Europe and Asia, and its membership or non-membership in the European Union won't change this (there are lots of parts of Europe not in the EU, and several parts of the EU not in Europe). – Jao (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Add link to Manx Language Please
Can someone add a link to the Manx language in the paragraph about European languages. Irish, Scottish Gaelic and Breton have links so Manx should too. (Manx language). Also why is this page protected? Protection should only be used for highly sensitive articles and only for a short time. Locking articles is against the spirit of Wikipedia. 213.230.130.56 (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * link fix to Neanderthals also. -- Harjk   talk   08:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo
I just reverted the inclusion of Kosovo. Kosovo's declaration of independence is not crucial, international recognition is. Areas such as Transnistria and Northern Cyprys have declared independence years ago without being recognised. It is very likely that Kosovo will soon gain international recognition and Wikipedia should reflect it once that happens. To date, no other country has yet recognised it so let's keep our heads cool for a few days and avoid an edit war. JdeJ (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe you are not right. I think Kosovo is a unique case, which cannot be compared to any other instance in history. Because the Kosovo's independence was backed by many countries, as well as the U.N. and the E.U., it should immediately be reflected on the map!--DataOpen (talk) 08:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As the EU is currently dicussing this matter (as at 18 Feb o8) it would be wrong to say that Kosovo's independence has been backed by them. I think the UN position is likewise. Perhaps you have some FACTS to back your POV--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As at Noon on 18 Feb 08, The BBC is reporting that Cyprus, Greece, Romania and Spain from the EU meeting are currently not ready to recognise Kosovo, and in the UN that Russia (and of course Serbia) are opposed to Kosovan independence, whilst China has "deep concern" (it is in quotes on the BBC site too!. So you statement about EU and UN recognition is demonstrably false, and I suggest you withdraw it.--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I see from DataOpen's page that he/she could hardly be described as a disinterested neutral. He/she is open on his/her User Page about his/her motives - that is to be commended. So many move with deceit these days. However, to say that Kosova has been returned to Albania is something of an overstatement, don't you think, and only serves to fuel Serb nationalism (I am not a Serb by the way - can't speak the language, never been there - can't speak Russian either)--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep that Russian propaganda away from Wikipedia, JdeJ. If you have Isle of Man and Jersey on the list then you could have other such recognized and only recognized territories. However, Kosova has been added as a country as its recognition will follow soon. Thank you DataOpen.--Getoar (talk) 09:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Jersey and the Isle of Man don't have armies (AFAIK, having visited Jersey, but not the IOM). you want Kosovo to not have an army?. Jersey has its own money - does Kosovo? The money has the head of another country on it (yep, the Queen of England), but it has a different design apart from that. Jersey still uses Jersey 1 pound notes (paper money) while in the UK they were replaced by coins years ago. North Cyprus declared itself independent a long time ago (AFAIK), but as only one other country (Turkey) recognises it, it isn't on the Wikipedia list. So- Does kosovo have its own army, or it it protected by another country? Does it have its own money? Is it formally recognised by any other recognised country? (OK, so ignore that one - time has passed us by, whatever the overall rights and wrongs of the situation) Does any other country claim that Jersey and IOM are an integral part of their sovereign territory i.e. claim sovereign territorial rights. Please discuss these issues before reverting again Be lucky Mariya - x - --Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Additionally, IF international recognition subsequently follows, how do you feel about the serb-majority districts forming yet another "independent" country. Unless there are significant economic benefits to staying as part of a PROJECTED Kosovan state, why would they not want to leave (politically, not geographically), and either be independent, or merge with Serbia? You (Getoar) may not want to live in Serbia, but why would Serbs want to leave (politically) Serbia? (which is what the unilateral Kosovan action implies). What about the Serb-dominated bits of Serbia-in-Kosova that are not next to Serbia? Surely on your logic they should be allowed to declare their own several independence too? Then as independent states (albeit mini-states) they can vote to integrate their territories to become part of a "Greater Serbia" with scattered bits in other PROJECTED countries. The legal situation would be a nightmare, for a start. Then if there were are cross-border riots by the surrounding areas, would not the Serbian army be entitled under international law to defend its (newly-adjusted) territory. And what if elements of the Serbian army were "over-enthusiastic" in that protection. Hmm. I think we have been here before. What say you? --Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please acquaint yourself with WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I'm perfectly entitled to having opinions witout you directing personal attacks at me. Funny enough, as it's not too long since I was accused by some Russian nationalits of being anti-Russian. Nationalists of all colours seem very fond of playing the propaganda-accusation card. JdeJ (talk) 09:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair comment - LESS propaganda, MORE facts are needed.--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Kosovo has now been recognised by many countries across the world including the USA, UK and France and will be recognised by Germany and Italy tomorrow - that is 4 of the 6 permanent security council members - China has declared a certain neutrality to the situation and Russia has come out against Kosovo, however due to the general acceptance of Kosovo by the international community, I think that it is right for Kosovo to be added to the list of Southern Europe countries. Hypergreg (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Hypergreg. Always nice to see a new member. Beg pardon, but you seem confused whom the permanent members of the UN Security council are. Last time I looked there were 5 (not 6) - Germany and Italy not holding Permanent seats for clear historical reasons (even though Germany has probably the 3rd largest economy in the world - Japan, probably the 2nd largest, doesn't get a seat either - neither are nuclear powers either - I say probably because economists are not sure how big the Chinese economy is and are not agreed on which measure to count it). According to Kofi Annan, the decisions of the Security Council ARE International Law. The current chap, Ban Ki-moon, AFAIK, hasn't said much about that issue yet. The last Security Council Resolution passed regarding the sovereignty of the Kosovo region of Serbia specifically said that the UN involvement in the area did not change Serbia's sovereignty of Kosovo. In the absence of a superceding Security Council Resolution, or an agreement of similar weight by an apropriate Commission (or similar) in the UN, or an international legal ruling of an equivalent wieght, I believe that you will agree me that the position in International Law is clear - Kosovo is part of Serbia (period). The purpose of the UN, and modern International law is surely to prevent and/or reduce conflicts. One only has to look at the period between 1900 and 1945 to see the sort of mess that can occur in the Balkans (there are of course other periods you could choose, which would demonstrate the same point). One might also look instructively at the case of Cyprus. If Kosovo has been returned to Albania as one contributor to this page has claimed on his user page, then would not the Serbs be justified in protecting the Serb population of the area by armed intervention (as was the stated case (i.e. protecting the Turkish Cypriot population from the pro-Greek Cypriots) of Turkey when invading Cyprus in the early 1970's) The USA, with it's upcoming elections, surely has an eye on domestic politics, and distracting attention from the long-running and very expensive (that's the politest thing I can think of to say about it) wars it is participating in. A recognition of a breakaway majority Muslim region makes George Bush and the USA seem to be less anti-Muslim (a charge regularly levelled against the USA by certain governments and political groups when commenting on the last five years of US policy. Likewise the UK. The UK is also rather keen to annoy Russia in a minor way (recent relationships between the countries having deteriorated over spies, poisoning etc. etc.) France is also, I believe, playing to a domestic audience, as it has recently suffered from some level of inter-ethnic strife in the country. To be honest, all that stuff about one country playing another off against a third is a lot of what was wrong with the Balkans in the 1900-1914 period - and look where that led! But, to summarise, I believe I have demonstrated that International Law is currently clear in this case. If you (or another contributor) would like to argue otherwise (and show me where I am wrong), I would be very interested in your (or their) reply. Mariya - x  - --Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan makes the listing of Asian countries with 23 international recognitions; Northern Cyprus doesn't make the list of European countries with only one. Nine is between 1 and 23, and who's to say how many is enough, but universal international recognition is not the standard that seems to have been applied on Wikipedia. 71.150.252.203 (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC) Want to answer the International Law question - that only needs 5 (the right 5) - plus recognition in this case is already subject to an International Law outcome which says that Kosovo is not a separate country.--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC) And FWIW, Taiwan isn't AFAIK covered by a similar Security Council resolution - correct me if I am wrong.--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My mistake Mariya - for some reason, was thinking Italy was a permanent member for some reason and I fully know about the UK/Russia situation as I live in the UK, unfortunately I can only see that getting worse currently but I dont think that Kosovo is actually related to this current spat - Russia is clearly refusing to recognise Kosovo due to Chechnya as Spain is due to the Basque region. I think it is important at this moment for the EU to act as a 3rd party in these affairs as both Kosovo and Serbia wish to join the EU and as the EU has no common policy on the Kosovo question as yet. On the point of whether it should be recognised on the Europe page as a country, I think it should be due to the simple fact that a large number of countries particularly in Europe have recognised/stated intention to recognise Kosovo. As a different member suggested above - Taiwan has limited recognition but is included in the Asia list and although Taiwan is not Kosovo, I believe it sets a precident for wikipedia, when a country gains a significant level of recognition around the world, it should be added to wikipedia regardless of whether its declaration of independence does technically break the word of international law - many people argue that the USA, UK and others broke international law by going to war with Iraq however they are not facing trial in the Hague - international law can be and often is disregarded by nations. Other territories such as South Ossetia and TRNC have such little backing that it is valid for them not to be included with full sovereign nations. Would be interested to hear your thoughts on that. Hypergreg (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

the question of whther other countries have broken international law (re: Iraq) 1) Two wrongs don't make a right. If we are going to go down that line, then lets not bother paying for the UN and just go back to having wars to settle everything like we used to. 2) the question of Iraq re: International Law was never fully resolved. The USA, UK etc. said they had an continuing mandate from a earlier UN resolution (passed unanimously by the then 15 Security Council members) which had not been superceded. The question was whether this mandate applied or not - had the actions mentioned in it been completed or not, and whether there was a continuing authority for further action, and if so, for how long. Despite the propaganda from both the pro-war and anti-war camps, this has never been resolved. A new security council resolution covering the answer, or a suitably appointed UN committee, or a team of authorised international lawyers could resolve this. None of this has happened. Thus it is an open question. The question of Kosovo, on the other hand, is not an open question. The most recent UN security council resolution dealing with the sovereignty specifically states that it is part of Serbia, and that the UN actions in Kosovo do not change this. Period. There is no debate. If either a) the Security council issues another resolution or b) a suitably appointed UN body/committee/commission issues a new instruction chnaging the international law then the case changes. Unilateral actions by countries are irrelevant in international law, as are unilateral recognitions. Hope that clears it up. If the Permanent UN Security Council members don't like Russia's (or China's) attitude, then they should'nt have agreed the resolution in the first place, should they! If a country makes a deal with another (which is what effectively happened when the resolution was passed), it is only reasonable for that agreement to be binding until superceded. As a foot note, it a SIXTH member is appointed, it is likely to be India anyway, not Italy. The EU already has two seats, and that is more than any other area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 14:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there any way that people can agree to a special section listing de-facto territories whose status is in dispute? This would presumably include Kosovo, and probably also Northern Cyprus, and perhaps the Bosnian Serb Republic.  Richwales (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Good Idea!! Best not to use the phrase "de-facto" (and I am aware what it means), and then I am in agreement with you! The 'Bosnian Serb' thing is a good example, because they have to be a hot candidate for tit-for-tat independence, and it would be difficult for the USA, UK etc. not to recognise them (I think they are currently holding fire on this, as it would be seen to legitimise the Kosovo situation). North Cyprus is currently being dealt with as part of accession talks for the EU, by them and Turkey, but who knows how long it will take. Also covered by a UN resolution 35 years ago or so, but I don't know what it said, and I don't know if it has been updated

What about Cornwall? (only half-joking) - they have a flag and a proper language of their own and everything! Mariya - x - --Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 01:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The reason I said "de facto" was to distinguish between regions controlled by a functioning sovereign government (albeit not universally recognized) on the one hand, and areas inhabited (possibly terrorized) by a liberation movement that has not in fact displaced the recognized sovereign government. Thus, I would want to include Kosovo, Northern Cyprus, and Republika Srpska, but not the Basque Country or Cornwall.  Richwales (talk) 05:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So what soversign powers does the administration have in Kosovo that are not those of just a county council? Simailarly, the Republika Srpska ( as you call it).

Mariya--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 09:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I HATE EDIT WARS. They too often corrupt the consistency of the provided information, because the protagonists fail to foresee the impact of their rush edits. Just one example (out of many): The current issue is that many people think Kososvo has to be added to all lists immediately. (That's OK for me as it would be to wait and see). But when you add one country to a list of all European countries summarizing the area and the population of the whole continent, then you must sit down 2 minutes longer and subtract those numbers elsewhere, otherwise Europe will grow, which – and I think at least in this respect Serbians and Albanians can equally agree – is not the case. So please people, if you cannot hold back on reverting edits from your love-hate opponents take at least care of the implications of your edit. Tomeasy (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is more complicated than it seems at first glance: we can't take a population number for Kosovo, determined by one source at one point in time, and subtract it from a population number for Serbia, determined by another source at another point in time, and then call that the population of Serbia ex Kosovo, without having done original research. 71.150.252.203 (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The accuracy of the approach you've outlined is some orders of magnitude larger than doing no correction at all! Actually the introduced error, as you've explained, will simply be in the range of errors that we are anyway dealing with all the time, especially this list. Tomeasy (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo shoul be removed from the list or listed as a part of Serbia. Only the UNSCR 1244 should be relevant here ,and it clearly mentiones Serbian sovereinty over Kosovo. Njemanja (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not abide by the United Nations or any of its resolutions, our content is independent from any international organizations. Kosovo should be listed there because it is recognized as an independent country by tens of other countries. Should by all means have a note explaining that its inclusion as an independent country is disputed, but still be listed as such in order to comply with WP:NPOV. Hús  ö  nd  15:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Than why don't you add Northern Cyprus? It is recognized by Turkey. (It is also occupied by the Turkish Army!!)Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC) Adding Kosovo to the list of independent countries is not a neutral act, as it corresponds 100% to the albanian point of view ,and 0% to serbian point of view. I think that adding "(Serbia)" next to "Kosovo" would be a compromise solution and a really neutral point of view. Njemanja (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've been away for a while. It appears that the UN (or parts of it, at least) appear to have handed "defacto" control of Kosovo to the "Albanian" faction. Therefore, my definite objection on the grounds of international law appears to have been much reduced in strength. I therefore am happy to accept the views of others which ever way that falls.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 00:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hate to say I told you so, but I hear on the news that the Serbs in Kosovo have formed a breakaway Serbian Assembly. Kosovan politicians are busy denouncing it as illegal etc. etc. Albanian Kosovans don't seem to like it when the boot is on the other foot, do they? Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

How is the links in Blank Europe Map created?
This question many not be very appropriate to the talk section. But I just wanted to know how the wiki links on the Blank Map of Europe is created. i.e When I see the blank map of europe (the second pic in europe page) I see there are links to different countries. But when I go to the edit page, I can't see them. Can someone tell me how to create/ change it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nisrec (talk • contribs) 07:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Changes to definition of Europe
I have a few issues with the recent Europe edit, and I was hoping a contributor could clear things up for me. 1) the edit says that the eastern border of europe IS disputed, then it mentions a couple of sources 2000 or so years old. Would it not be fair to say that the border has been disputed in the past, rather than is disputed. I am not aware of a dispute over the Eastern border for a hundred years or so. If a 2000 year time scale is allowable for the present tense, then surely Italy can lay a claim to ownership of much of the Near East, etc. etc. 2)The point about europe being a political definition may be correct (links to the Roman, Byzantine, and Frankish, Saxon, and Swedish empires spring to mind (amongst others), but it isn't backed up with any references - it is therefore likely to be struck out for that reason in addition to any other. 3) The only source for europe and asia being contiguous (hope I spelled it right) seems to be a chinese map a) From the chinese perspective perhaps "abroad" was "abroad" - additionally nowadays two types of maps exist, political and physical. How do you know that the Chinese map is not a political map - in which case the definition of continents is irrelevant. There is also AFAIK no evidence that the chinese actually visited europe (certainly not western europe) so the map would have been drawn on second-hand information
 * As a side note, you are correct about this; the Chinese visited the Black Sea but they only had second-hand information on Rome (and anything west). Heliades (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

b) The conclusions about europe being a western political invention do not seem to be supportable by the single piece of evidence you suggest. Hope things can be cleared up Mariya - x - --Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC) Well, I see that the edit I referred to above has been reverted. After all, It was very short on references.--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I reverted it. A lot of WP:OR. We should of course always try to assume good faith, but the user you're thinking about seems to be operating from a vandalism-only account. His edit history consists of inserting complete nonsense in violation of WP:OR and of several severe cases of personal attacks. JdeJ (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You are assuming bad faith and had no business reverting my edit. As stated in the very first line of the 3rd paragraph of this article, "Europe is the birthplace of Western culture."...Europe as a continent is a WESTERN fallacy, a viewpoint that is foisted on the world by westerners.  Eastern maps predating those of "europeans" do not show a divide in the continental mass between "Asia" and "Europe".  The idea of a European 'continent' is ridiculous, ESPECIALLY under the heading of "Geology".  If you want to have it a separate 'continent' for the rest of the article, fine, but don't belittle the science of geology by claiming that there are actually two continents in fact, when they only exist by convention.


 * 4) Plate tectonics and similar geological thoeries seem to be a 20th century development. As the boundaries of europe had been established by then, plate techtonics would appear to be a "red herring" at best.--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, report my edits. Let me know where you have reported them to so that I may respond to your irresponsible reversions.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaq1qaz (talk • contribs) 21:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong words. I rather thought that Europe as a political entity is an extension of the Charlemagne thing - so it is a bit before your Chinese map! Got any sources or is it just your POV (and thus inadmissable in Wikipedia) Love to hear your comments on my points above, particularly the one about the Chinese map. Mariya - x - --Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Zaq1qaz, perhaps you don't understand how this works. Wikipedia isn't a discussion forum, it's an attempt at an encyclopedia. This carries several implications, one of which is the need for sources. Your edits have consisted of highly speculative theories of your own, violating several Wikipedia policies such as WP:OR, WP:WEASEL and WP:POV. Please read those policies, source your edits and discuss controversial changes on the talk page before doing them. JdeJ (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia provides many tools to address the lack of references, primary among them is the FACT tag. Note that at the very top of this discussion page is this statement: "	A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article."


 * You still have not entered into a discussion of the possible benefits to the article of including my contributions. Yes, references are needed.  But I think this situation could have been handled simply by inserting a request for citations and then adding a discussion header on this page to, you know, DISCUSS IT, before just deleting it out-of-hand.


 * You refuse to discuss the facts. What does Wikipedia call that?Zaq1qaz (talk) 13:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Erroneous WWI map Image:Europe_1914.png
The map with the caption "Military alliances in Europe, 1914" used in the history section is not completely correct. It shows Romania and Italy – both neutral in 1914 – as allies of the entente. However, both joined the entente during the war--Italy in 1915, Romania in 1916.

There are basically two options for us: (i) change the colors in the map or (ii) edit the caption, change the file name, and the tag in the map. With both options I am not quite sure as to how they are inline with copyright agreements. Since the map is not a vector graphic I am unable to perform action (i), which I favor, because it appears more reasonable to show alliances at the beginning of a war, than at an arbitrary later time. Therefore, I am waiting if someone wants to take an initiative. Otherwise I will simply perform option (ii) in some days. If so, what would you prefer, to change the year 1914 into 1916 or into 1918? The latter would refer to the end of WWI and therefore would not be so arbitrary.

Btw, the map is used multiple times. I have also seen it on Serbia. So therefore it might be a good idea to work on the image itself. Tomea s y talk 12:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Somewhat later, I changed the caption, but was unfortunately not able to change the 1914 tag in the map.


 * Here is the thread that I had started some time ago. Looking forward to more response this time. Tomea s y talk 16:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No worries. I will change it.--Geographyfanatic (talk) 16:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Provided there is no copyright issue, having seen the new map on my talk page, I'd say well done. Tomea s y talk 17:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Would like the References for this primary statement (see below)
"Europe is the birthplace of Western culture. European nations played a predominant role in global affairs from the 16th century onwards, especially after the beginning of colonization. By the 17th and 18th centuries European nations controlled most of Africa, the Americas, and large portions of Asia."

Did Western Culture pre-date the concept of a "Europe", or was "Europe" a creation of "Western Culture".

"...predominant role in global affairs from the 16th century onward..."? Really? References or reasoning? Zaq1qaz (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Would you care to post less personal opinions and more sources? You've been asked to do this umpteen times, but you keep on posting completely irrelevant material, complaining about western culture, writing long essays about why some Europeans are blue-eyed and other things with no relevance at all to the subject. You've been asked to provide sources to your claims on how to define a continent, nothing else. If you have them, start sourcing them. JdeJ (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I posted this, DAYS ago. Maybe you should read what other people are writing instead of keeping a closed mind.


 * "Thus the concept of remote peoples possibly more advanced than themselves has always been present to Europeans, and Europe (like the individual countries within Europe) has always been classified as one in a list of sibling regions, at best by its own efforts temporarily primus inter pares. Inseparable from the Europeans' comparative viewpoint has been the sense that their own achievements were without final validity, being always subject to overshadowing by known or unknown civilisations outside Europe. This constant relativisation, especially vis-á-vis the East where through most of history the real rivalry lay, produced a social space loaded with competitive instability, in strong contrast to the paternally centred Chinese world space."


 * It was within this geographic-conceptual schema, under the major headings of 'Asia' and 'Orient, East', that the European idea of China took shape. Long before there was more than one or two sentences' worth of knowledge (even fabulous) about China itself, the genus into which new information would be fitted was ready prepared in the European mind."


 * From
 * Andrew L. March:
 * The Myth of Asia


 * (New York: Preager, 1974), 23-43, 61-67


 * http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phalsall/texts/mythofasia.html


 * At least one other editor felt that the above was a good enough reference. If I was to feel that some tyrant editor wasn't going to just delete my contributions out-of-hand without consideration, I'd get more.  So far, all I've experienced is closed-mindedness and assumptions of bad faith.


 * Also, I noticed you didn't provide the references I asked for. Am I the only editor required to provide sources and citations?Zaq1qaz (talk) 03:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If that quote in any way proves that Europe isn't a continenet, I'm afraid I fail to see it. Would you care to highlight where it says, or even implies, that Europe isn't a continent? And who are these other editors who agree with you that Europe isn't a continent? I haven't seen the, contribute to the disussion here. As for references of my own, supporting the idea of Europe being a continent, you'll find a long list of them in the article Continent.JdeJ (talk) 07:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I think Europe is a perfectly valid description, the bit about it having a predominant role in global affairs from the 16th century onward is perhaps a tad eurocentric, and although I have yet to agree with one editor on anything, I am tempted to support his desire for a reference to back this particular line. As to the question of Did Western Culture pre-date the concept of a "Europe", or was "Europe" a creation of "Western Culture", I think that probably both are true: an option that some editors seem to not allow for. The source quoted above is also interesting and clearly biased, and should be viewed in the cultural context in which it was written, BUT that doesn't make it inappropriate. It is best countered with other sources (Isn't that the Wikipedia way?) I do agree with another editor that the source does not seem to say that Europe isn't a Continent, however, and although the source MAY be useful in bringing additional balance to Europe article, I see no reason for altering the concept of Europe. --Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I see your point about the quote, Mariya, but this is one of the cases where I would be tempted to argue that a claim is sure enough for it to be valid even without a specific source. Starting from the 16th century, European states colonised all of America, virtually all of Africa and more than half of Asia. From the 16th century, European languages (mainly Spanish, English, Portuguese and French) were established over an enormous area covering most of the world. From this period untill the 20th century, European empires ruled most of the world. Now, I'm not saying this was necessarily a good thing, we all known that the colonisation was a cruel thing at many times. But to say that Europe had a predominant role in global affairs from the 16th century onward is almost an understatement. With the exception of parts of the Middle East, Japan and China, Europe ruled the entire world during that time - including Central Asia that was conquered by Russia. Given all this, I think the statement is perfectly valid and not at all too eurocentric. JdeJ (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The quote is meant to point out that "Europe" is a continent ONLY from the POV of the West. Eastern portions of the Eurasian continent, the larger portion in both population and land area, did not view "Europe" as a continent.


 * Given the dodgy eastern border of the so-called "European" continent, I have to wonder how "covering about 10,180,000 square kilometres (3,930,000 sq mi) or 2% of the Earth's surface" was arrived at, what the source of that number is?


 * My original contribution did not affect the upper portions of the article where the word 'continent' was defined as being both a political as well as a physical description. My changes were only made regarding the physicality of "Europe" as a continent and the fact that in history, it was created out of a Western viewpoint that "Europeans" were different (or at least wanted to think of themselves as different) from the other residents of the Eurasian continent.  It is all about viewpoint; this article is seriously skewed towards the western viewpoint.


 * If Europe is a continent, then why isn't the Middle East a continent? Why isn't there a "Latin" continent since there are "Latino's" who come from multiple countries just as "Europeans" and "Middle Easterners" do.  You can define "Europe" as a continent because, like the Middle West of the U.S., it is an understood shorthand for a portion of a larger continental area and because, mistakenly, earlier people called it a continent.  But seriously, do you really think it actually is a physically separate continent?  Seriously?Zaq1qaz (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Seriously? I seriously think you still don't understand. You keep asking for my view and keep giving your own views. Once and for all, your view is of no interest at all here. None whatsoever. Neither is mine. What matters is the established view, this is an encyclopedia and not a discussion forum. I don't know how many times I've pointed it out to you but you still don't seem to get it. And the quote doesn't support the view that Europe isn't a continent, it doesn't say so anywhere in the text. To be quite honest, you have wasted both your own time, other's time and space at this discussion board with complete nonsense. You might have misunderstood what Wikipedia is at first, but you've been told so many times already that it is NOT a discussion board to present our own theories. It's NOT a discussion board to give vague quotes and your own interpretations of them. It IS an encyclopedia. I will end this discussion now as everything of any relevance has been said. JdeJ (talk) 08:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If your view is so unimportant, as is mine apparently, then why not allow both views to be presented?


 * Why is the Western view of 'continent' formation the correct viewpoint? Which is the whole point.
 * Only in the eyes of the fearful romans cowering from the 'asian' barbarians was europe a continent. And as they tried with Galileo, just because they say so, doesn't make it so.


 * I notice there have been no references offered for the statements I quoted at the beginning of this section. Perhaps they should be deleted as well?Zaq1qaz (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

US independence
Could someone please write some more on US independence in the 18th and 19th Centuries section I have added a sentence but I very little on the subject. Thanks  Harland1 (t/c) 14:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

European Borders
There is a BIG problem going on about whether Republic of Georgia and other neighboring countries should be included in Europe or not .As you know there is no official border between europe and Asia and there is a great number of unofficial versions .so you might think that it is LOGICAL to explain all of the versions that exist for today on that page..........     well sadly thats not what most editors think. they put one version there and every time I changed it, it went back to the previous version. now I am just wondering do these people think it is their personal page or what gives them the right to rely on several sources and ignore other ones that are not any less trust me. They should definately offer every version of where the border goes between the two continents instead of putting only one version and not even bothering to explain why, it is unacceptable. I contacted one of the editors and he/she said that he chose that version because he/she "thinks it is the most neutral one". I am sorry but what some users "think" should be completely irrelevant while making an article on the website which has an ambition to be Credible. they should include all of the versions or not include anything at all before there is an OFFICIAL border ! Council of Europe, the oldest organization in europe classifies country as european, country is in the middle of the NATO membership process (only european countries are eligible for it according  to the North Atlantic Treaty) and they are not even mentioning why they left it out. Turkey is not the case because it was already amember of nato. cant they understand that page is not about the EU. its the entire europe as a whole and until the borders will be determined OFFICIALLY all of the versions should be included. they dont seem to understand my very logical arguments and even used some rude words in private messages.--Polscience (talk) 04:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me just pick on one detail of your line of argumentation: country is in the middle of the NATO membership process (only european countries are eligible for it according to the North Atlantic Treaty). Are you actually aware of the fact that the USA and Canada are NATO members?
 * Besides that, I would agree with you that the issue of Georgia and its neighbors being Europe or not is a delicate one and not at all settled. However, I am afraid wikipedia will not settle it either, partly because opponents here tend to get very emotional when it comes to discuss these kinds of issues. Tomeasy (talk) 12:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * USA and candada were the founding members thats why. the charter says that Nato ENLARGMENT should not envolve any country other than the European ones --Polscience (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Misinformed Georgian POV pusher, caused a lot of trouble yesterday. Have spoken to him. Hús  ö  nd  13:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not quite sure whether we should so easily disqualify this opinion. Myself, I take the stance that the European border in this regions is marked by the Caucasus, which leaves the referred countries out, except for a comparatively small fraction of Georgia. However, even though never having spoken to a Georgian, I have heard many times people referring to that country as European. I agree that this is a minority opinion and should be treated as such, but labeling it a Georgian POV does not seem fair to me. As I said I have heard this opinion from people who could not care less about Georgian sentiments. So, what arguments stand against giving this controversy and diversity in perception a side note. Tomeasy (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * to HUSOND : I am not trying to make anyone "LOOK" european and I think nothing is wrong with NON-european or asians etc.. If thats what you are trying to say I have to tell you that RACISM  and discrimination on this website and anywhere else should not be tolerated and stop impying that Europeans are any better than others.  I really don't have a need to make someone "LOOK"  like anything  and you should really modify your supercilious tone.. Its just that those countries have to be either in europe or asia. IF  I DID  NOT see them there AT ALL I would never  move  anything in european section. but as it was there as in western asia, I thought it was wrong because as YOU  already said the borders are not official and we dont know yet. so if you DONT  KNOW yet the exact location why is it in western asia ? is it like a waiting room or what ?  it means you know it, otherwise why would you put it there. if you will OMIT  it completely I really would not care, it either has to be there or it does not have to be there at all. once again, you agreed with me that the borders are not officially define yes ? did you say that ? OK. thats what I am saying. then why is it in western asian category if borders are not defined ? put it somewhere else, separate it completely and show a map which does not show only one  particular version of it. the one before was showing exactly ONE (biased) version and I am happy that I did not see it lately.  In your previous PRIVATE  letter  there was clear message conveyed that was implying on some one trying to make someone "look" like something else because they are  kind of LESS the way they are. I have to call on you to strongly REFRAIN from that type of comment anytime in the future..--Polscience (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please stop copy-pasting your comments and sending them to me via e-mail. And please stop yelling and threatening, it's useless and won't help your case. You have already been advised to read some important pages about how Wikipedia functions, such as WP:POV. Your insistence that Georgia cannot be considered a transcontinental country will have you regarded by other users as a troll. Hús  ö  nd  10:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am sorry that I do not know the previous history of this discussion, but to me it sounded as if Polscience was indeed arguing for a transcontinental, somewhat undefined status. I have to admit that even though reading his lengthly paragraph, I could not develop a clear picture on what message he is actually trying to convey. The only thing that appears pretty clear to me is that he is very emotional about the issue. However, if we approach this issue a little bit more relaxed, I have hope that there might be consensus along a compromising statement. Perhaps something that makes clear what the majority opinion is, but also mentions that there is no absolute answer - just an idea.
 * I have just screened the current state of the article (I know, I should have done this earlier). The way Georgia and Azerbaijan are treated there is exactly how I would propose it. The respective footnotes are accurate and also compromise between both points of view. However, I the treatment of Armenia, which appears to be larger than the two other states is not optimal in this context.Tomeasy (talk) 11:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * you are the one who has to stop making racial comments and  treat other people like equal and stop implying that that European race is any better than the others. I am not European myself and I dont care which country is in or out. by the way that does not depend on you... wikipedia is the only place were yoursamll brain can express itself just like many other unknowlagable people in here. there is no need for someone to try to make someone "LOOK" like anything  else than what they are . they probably would not even claim to be european if they knew that they would be somehow associated with a fascist like you. maybe all those people have to die their hair platinum blonde for you to like them  !--Polscience (talk) 11:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * At Polscience: Your tone is really not the best. I have not seen any racial statement here by Husond.Tomeasy (talk) 11:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Polscience, I shall now ask you to read WP:Civil and WP:NPA. Your language, accusations and incivility are not tolerated on Wikipedia. Please calm down. Hús  ö  nd  12:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Users Polscience and nd are both out of line here and should perhaps consider backing away from this topic for a while. Polscience, accusations of racism and calling other users facists are completely unacceptable. You're entitled to your view but have to accept that others aren't obliged to share it. Husond, labelling someone a "Misinformed Georgian POV pusher" is not the way to calm a heated situation, and the view in question is in no way "Georgian POV". I recommend that both of you consider WP:Civil. Thanks. JdeJ (talk) 15:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * what Husond said here was definitely not racist but in his private message to me, he accused me of trying to make someone "LOOK" and appear european. and it sounded to me like he is something so special and europeans are so special that everyone is trying to be like them and that I, a person who has nothing to do with georgia in any way am accused of pushing POV and trying to make them "LOOK" european. who does he think he is. I will definitely stop posting these messages and stop disturbing  everyone on this board. its not worth doing just because of his arrogance. no one is "trying" to be something that they are  not and there is no need to be "european" at all. I am not european and I am proud of who I am and I hope so are most of the people. Just because he is probably more experienced in wikipedia and has all those worthless "awards" does not mean that he has the right to put what ever he wants. my tone was definitely  not the best  but thats the only way I could respond to his supercilious and subtle comments that looked like nothing special on the surface. he managed to do that even with such usually  inaudible person like me. I regret that I even started talking to him about his issue. its just that it would be unfair if I did not do it.  I have to say that calling him fascist was not a good idea, on the other hand I have to admit that I really think he is racist and it is absolutely unacceptable. Reason why I think he is : ( even though he admits borders are not established yet,  he can easily put countries in asia, but cant in europe. it means he determined the borders himself according to whatever i said before.. OMIT those countries completely. dont make articles at all. who cares, its just sad  that people like him are on this website and I also believe that I and not him will be BANNED for these comments  because I am LESS than him and he is the BEST editor on earth with many awards and whats the most important is that he is EUROPEAN and the rest of us are not. !!! --Polscience (talk) 16:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Polscience please cease your accusations and incivility at once. Focus on the topic you're discussing, not on users whom you disagree with. Hús  ö  nd  21:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * oh please, I think my arguments need a better response than just you calling for ceasing accusations.Its just that you dont even have an answer and you know exactly what you meant when you said that I am trying to make someone "LOOK" european. what do you mean by concentrating on the topic? I said enough about the topic. we BOTH agreed that borders are not established yet, that is why putting them in several regions but europe is uaaceptable. It either needs to be in Asian section as it is now already, or in the western asian section where it is now already as well, or the european section where it is listed as western asian or it does not have to be there at all.it  is everywjere but in europe even though borders are not official yet? WHY do you think it is very easy for you to put them in asia, or western asia and not europe even though the borders are not established ? why do you think those people and me( I can imagine how big you think of you as european)  are trying to "LOOK" and be european? what gives you the right to give that supercilious evaluation ? you are BIASED, thats the only explanation.YES, I am accusing you and I am accusing you of being a racist and being a paranoid that thinks that everyone is trying to be European and HUSOND is a brave person who does everything to protect them from "Unnessesary" people and people who he thinks are LESS than him personally because he is european. Europe is like a priviledged section where countries can be put thats why its hard for them to be there and not hard to be in middle east even though the article itself says that first european homo georgicus was found in georgia.next time if you will bother to write a response, I urge you to adress all these REAL issues instead of calling for ceasing accusations.  --Polscience (talk) 02:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Your recent edits to WP on the geographical location of Georgia have been completely against consensus and unsupported by any reliable sources. You have removed all mention of Georgia from some articles when it suited you. This does not seem to be constructive WP editing and verges on vandalism. Please desist. Mathsci (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In my humble opinion note m covers the necessary facts about the topic and readers wishing for further info can go to the Georgia article. So why don't we leave this discussion here and try to improve the article rather than fight each other. I would like to get it to FA status in the not to distant future and I would greatly appreciate all of your help.  Harland1 (t/c) 11:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Unlikely to succeed. Please do not patronise other WP editors. Mathsci (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I am personally tired of arguing with these people who dont seem to understand anything.

TO MATHSCI: please go and get busy with mathematics. your expertise is completely irrelevant and worthless in this and many other sections of the similar nature. thank you for understanding --Polscience (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Polscience, I will block you, again, if you continue with this unacceptable behavior towards other users. For the last time, please respect WP:Civil. Thank you. Hús  ö  nd  20:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I am sorry if I did not follow the rules. next time I will definately consider it. I just thought that he would be more valuable to the math section than this one. thats all I wanted to say. I promise to be polite in the future and thats for sure not because I am afraid that you will block me.have a wonderful day .--Polscience (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You also continue to push your notion that Georgia must be entirely European. Please do not change the data on the article referring to the European part of Georgia to include the entire country. In fact, there's a hidden note next to those numbers explicitly asking users not to change the data without discussing it first. You've ignored the note and have done unilateral changes twice already. Please do not pursue with this. Thank you. Hús  ö  nd  01:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * as I remember all I did was that I changed the data because it was entirely wrong. area instead of 69,700 was saying only 2.000 and the population was 32,ooo or something like that . I know that there is a NOTE and I did nto do anything to it. I think there are also many other countries with the same entirely incorrect data. today I changed only georgia and armenia and next time I will try to fix most of them if someone will not do it before me.(for example azerbaijan has the same data problems as well on the Europe page) I hope you will not abuse your power and block me for doing that too. thank you--Polscience (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * HUSOND: the data on that page that I was trying to fix and you reverted is entirely wrong, Georgia armenia, azerbaijan, that is NOT their actual teritory and population. I urge you not to change the data correction just because it was me. if you will look at the list you will see that the numbers are entirely WRONG. you dont have to believe me, just go to the page of one of the countries and see that the actual data is very different.--Polscience (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Polscience, the data regarding Georgia on the table is only respective of its European part. Your "correction" changed the data to the entire area and population of Georgia. Not right. And I am not picking on you as you insist/repeat below, I am simply averting some disruption you've been causing to this and other articles. Please understand that. Hús  ö  nd  03:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * well OK, but now Im wondering why is Armenia so large, does it have a such big portion of its population and area in Europe or do you just like them more? and another thing is how did you calculate how many people live on the european portions ?--Polscience (talk) 10:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * To Mathsci: I was not patronising anyone and I am very sorry if my remark came across that way. I was merely trying to end a seemingly friutless discussion. And get some good done to the article rather than offending each other.  Harland1 (t/c) 14:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I, at least, did not interpret your remark as patronising in any way. I do disagree with it, though. "Note m" is unsourced and especially problematic if combined with "note k". The decision on which parts of which countries to include in the table seems completely arbitrary (read: original research) and not based on any geographical reality. If only a small part of Georgia and Turkey are located in Europe, how on earth could all of Armenia be located here? JdeJ (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we are all agreeing that the treatment of Armenia in the list is inconsistent, at least when compared to Turkey, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and Georgia. Furthermore, it appears to be original research, if we partition some countries and make up numbers for the part that we declare to be European. And at last, we cannot simply leave those transitional countries completely out or put them in completely without further mentioning. I hope this problem description is (at least roughly) supported by everyone. I find the issue complicated and delicate, nevertheless it requires an appropriate treatment.
 * Well, then we should go one step ahead now and discuss how such an appropriate statement can be designed. The creation of something sound is of course much more complicated then the dismissal of something unsound. Therefore I would like to encourage all of you to make constructive propositions towards a (new) solution and abandon for the time being the criticism of the status quo. Tomeasy (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Quite right. The ideal would be a couple of authorative sources agreeing on the borders of Europe. The problem is that even if we find five such sources, we're very likely to find a good deal of authorative sources making another limitation of the continent. My suggestion for the moment is to include all of Georgia in the table. It is already placed in a section of the table making it clear that there are disagreements about it, so it should not be a problem. Needless to say, Armenia should stay in the same way. While that might not be the utopic ideal version, I consider it an improvement to the perceived original research and strange borders of the current version. JdeJ (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I know I am not very popular on this board but I think I still have a say on this issue. I think that to solve the problem completely we need to determine the borders between the two continents (which at this points seems impossible) if we could determine the borders then some one very comitted to the article could count the cities or the populations of the entire regions in the european portion and add them together to get a rough and NOT exact population number. well again as we dont know where the border goes  we cant do Even that. that is why I think at this point we should either include all of their population or not include them  at all, That is all we have to agree on.. I personally would never imagine that someone would put a portion of the pupulation on the chart does not matter how many explanatory note will they add especially when you dont have an exact population. ( and will probably never have if you will not count village by village which is impossible) we must agree that countries dont sort their populations by the European portion or the asian portion.  same about Russia. I dont  even know where did they get this practice: including the European portion population............hhhmm. one second some users here say borders are NOT determined officially and they dont want to be biased, the other second they know the exact populations. it is very interesting indeed ! I hope all of you will express what you think here to finally do some thing about it without labeling it as "georgian POV" or banning each other. thank you--Polscience (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The official definition of Europe is slowly getting depleted as Turkey, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia, and Kazakhstan are increasingly often shoved into it, whereas Russia, Belarus (and sometimes Ukraine because of its geographical proximity) are pushed away and basically equalled to the aforementioned, so to say, newly admitted states. It seems that a fair amount of sources is trying to make people think that the primary criteria for being included into the definition is to be democratic, and to be a member of this or that organisation. It's probably pointless to try to openly fight against such a massive assault both in Wikipedia and on major sites like that of BBC, so I suggest that everyone who is not complacent with this agenda simply states something along the lines of what I just said as often as possible. --Humanophage (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong country data on Europe page
I saw that data of Georgia and turkey are not correct. I can say more, they are not even close, the numbers are just so different that they dont even make sense. for example for Turkey the area was saying 24,ooo while for georgia 2,000 when in reality it should be more than 783,ooo for Turkey and 69,700 for georgia. The population is entirely wrong too. I tried to fix it but dear User:Husond who probably has some personal problems with me after the recent dispute, undid my change and now its showing the wrong data again. could someone please take care of it?! I think he has to concentrate more on the correctness of the article than the person who makes them.

HUSOND: the data on that page that I was trying to fix and you reverted is entirely wrong, Georgia armenia, azerbaijan, that is NOT their actual teritory and population. I urge you not to change the data correction just because it was me. if you will look at the list you will see that the numbers are entirely WRONG. you dont have to believe me, just go to the page of one of the countries and see that the actual data is very different.--Polscience (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Polscience: Please, stop taking everything personal. Nobody, is opposing you because it is you. It is just the issue itself that Husond seems to interpret differently than you. The change that you have made was really wrong having the attached footnote in mind. I actually support the version that is standing as I support you argumentation that Georgia's status is not absolutely clear. But I think that this is being fairly treated by the footnote, explaining the small sizes of those countries in the list.
 * Husond: I find the treatment of Armenia very unlucky in this context. It appears being much larger than Georgia and Azerbaijan, whereas it is both smaller in total size and smaller in European size, if you apply the same demarcation line as for the other two countries.Tomeasy (talk) 09:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Tomeasy in every aspect. While I disagree with the way Polscience is arguing, I think he is right here. Based on what sources have we arrived at the the current population of Caucasian peoples that live in Europe? The notes are, to be frank, just a large piece of original research without any sources. And how on earth does the borders of Europe find their way to include most of Armenia while skipping over Georgia and Turkey?? This is quite obviously an error and should be fixed immediately. If no sources are given to support these rather strange interpretations, the least bad solution is to include all of Georgia in the table. JdeJ (talk) 10:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * to all those people who said that I did not look at the notes : I did look at the notes but there was nothing different from the rest of the notes when it comes to armenia, despite that, chart included armenia entirely, thats the only reason why I changed it. I understand that I am NOT very EXEPRIENCED in wikipedia but at the same time we have to understand that when you warn someone of bias and "pushing POV", I think we should not forget the mistakes that some of the people dont pay attention to as well.have a wonderful day--Polscience (talk) 11:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right on that one. The notes give no support to the data in the tables. In fact, both the notes and the table seems to be original research. JdeJ (talk) 11:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm quite busy now, just wanted to say that I think that we should probably remove Armenia from the list, as all of its territory is geographically in Asia. Will get back to this later. Hús  ö  nd  18:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * removing Armenia is one step but not a final solution. the main problem is how the population of the European section was calculated in the rest of the countries and even if by some miracle the numbers were somewhat correct,(which I doubt) how is it possible to put a specific number when the borders are not officially defined? maybe its miles longer or shorter, what do you do to that population ? I think the entire population should be included or entirely excluded, and not just Armenia. Its just a common sense. when we say that borders are not defined, how do we know how many people live in a territory which is we dont even know how large ?--Polscience (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You may place tags next to the data presented for the European parts of Georgia and Azerbaijan. That should prompt someone to provide sources for those numbers. If not, they should be erased.  Hús  ö  nd  21:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * you mean erasing the countries completely, erasing the data or changing it to the full population ? if we will erase the data it will look very incomplete so I still think it will be better to include the entire population--Polscience (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Erasing the data. The full population cannot be as this article is about the geographical Europe only, and must account for the population and area of geographical Europe only. Hús  ö  nd  23:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * but how do we know what is a geographical Europe if there are no official borders. Instead we have many version of borders. thats something that everyone agrees on.--Polscience (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no easy solution. There are no official borders but there are two widely accepted continental borders. Maybe the table should include data for each of the these border situations (if sources can provide data for them, that is). Hús  ö  nd  00:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think at this point all we can do is to add the maps for different version of bordders near the list where the UN definition map is already.--Polscience (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not go with the Council of Europe member states and include all of the Caucasian countries and Turkey also? 208.49.45.69 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ask Husond why not.. that is exactly the version that I believe is the best because it is by the council of europe which is the oldest and can say the FIRST organization that started working on the European INTEGRATION. if not their  definition then who's?--Polscience (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * thats what I think. I think council of Europe is not a kind of organization that we should look over just because some people think europe is the EU. CoE is older than EU,larger than EU, European flag was made by them In 1955 before the EU adopted it in 1983, briefly it started working on Europe's integration and democracy much earlier and that why I think it should not be ignored just like it was and still is. They were doing that even when the EU was JUST an economical alliance.--Evpri (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the CoE solution is not as easy and clear cut as it may seem. This is a political organization with states joining it (or not) and potentially leaving it (or being exempt). Just see the list of memberships of the CoE. It usually takes many years for a newly established country to join. Some countries established long before the CoE was founded took decades to join (Portugal, Spain, Finland and many more) or did not join at all (Vatican, Belarus). Everyone would agree that these countries were part of Europe even at times when the CoE was already existing but without them. That fact that only since very recently, the union of member states is almost congruent to the extended version of what we are anticipating as Europe, is rather coincidental and might change again. At last, observe that Kazakhstan is not a member. Accordingly, you (Polscience, Evpri) would probably argue it should be excluded from our list, while one might treat Belarus and Vatican as exceptions to the basic rule. But isn't it more commonly agreed on that Kazakhstan has some part in Europe than Armenia? What if the CoE decides to admit Kazakhstan to the club, is this country then Europe but not before, just because some representatives have made this decision?


 * OK, this was an objection, but objections are easy to put and alone they won't help us finding a solution. I would like to promote the status quo of the section Geography and extent of this page. It might be extended or further improved, of course, but I think we should take the presented reasoning as a basis. As Europe and Asia are tectonically one continent, the distinction is inherently vague. This is why there are multiple border definitions. However, it is far less controversial to decide on which countries make up the group of transitional/disputed countries. Therefore, I think we should include all those countries in the list (Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Russia) as it is the case now, including a note that they are transitional countries. The figures defining size and population should refer to the entire countries, since we do not have reliable sources to make something up, and we should not make something up ourselves. Once, such sources are found an additional row (or brackets) might be added for the respective country specifying its European part. Preferable this will be done with a footnote that relates to the underlying definition of the demarcation line, pointing out how this line relates to the text in the section Geography and extent. At least with respect to Turkey this could already be done. Tomeasy (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * From the Council of Europe page: Kazakhstan applied for observer status at the Parliamentary Assembly in 1999. The official response of PACE was that Kazakhstan could apply for full membership, because it is partially located in Europe, but that it would not be granted status until its democracy and human rights records improved. Lyräsic (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this detail. It shows how political and time-depended the CoE reasoning would be, if we took this body as the ultimate authority. Had we had this discussion before 1999, Kazakhstan would have been in, now one might take them in because of the above statement. Or others might argue for out, because they are not a member yet. I am afraid, the CoE ruling would not be consistently defensible. Tomeasy (talk) 09:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tomeasy that the table should include the area and the population of the entire country. That is the case already for some countries, such as Spain. The population of those parts of Spain that are geographically African (Canary Islands, Ceuta, Melilla) is part of the Spanish population in the table. I haven't looked, but I wouldn't be surprised if the French population included Frenchmen living in geographical America. Since we don't seem to have any specific, sourced population figures for parts of Georgia, Armenia or Azerbaijan, I strongly support using the sourced data for the entire countries in the table. JdeJ (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * well another problem is that those countries are referred to as western asian even on the European chart, while the Asian section and Middle east section include them all without even stating anything about europe. that everything implies that someone who edited the page considered those countries more asian than european.I dont think that it can be decided by one, two or does not matter how many editors. I will list things we have to do not to solve but to ease this problem and write whether you agree or not:

1, Change the "european population" to the entire population and size. 2. either remove "western asian" countries note from the Europe chart at all or add "european" note on the charts of Asia and Middle east as well to make things clear. 3.Include maps of all of the versions of borders.(I finished it partially)

these are all I think we can do AT THIS POINT; write if you agree or not and reason why. I hope it will help a little. --Polscience (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding total populations seems like a reasonable solution. We must keep in mind though that Europe is somewhat of a political/cultural area and its borders have changed through the years. It is not a separate geographic entity and that is why we are having so many different viewpoints on this matter. 12.169.70.10 (talk)


 * Ok, since there is no easy way to determine the population/area of those parts of Georgia and Azerbaijan that are geographically within Europe, I guess it would be alright for now to add the entire population of transcontinental countries, as long as they're appended notes explaining that their data may not be accurate (and in the case of Armenia, if included, that the data does not apply to geographical Europe at all). Hús  ö  nd  20:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with all three steps that Polscience offered. by the way when I several times heared different officials, they are reffering to that asian territories as " territories of a European state extending into asia" or somehting like that, and one of the maps says that as well I think.I believe it was the US ambassador. Im curently looking for the article. I think thats the best way to put it.--Evpri (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Why aren't the supposedly European parts considered as those of Asian states extending into Europe? --Humanophage (talk) 10:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree, evpri, it looks good to me too. I also agree with the fact that europe was expanding by all means and as you dont have official borders yet I think we should rely on culture as well. someone said in here culture is irrelevenat. thats if we had borders well defined and if it was actually a separate continent, then culture would probably be definately irrelevan, but now I think it matters more than anything. culture was a and still is something that defines borders between the two as the regions can be all mixed up. I think we should change them to entire populations and think in terms of culture as well. however I do not agree that Kazakhstan is in europe culturally.--Dybbtf (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I Agree too. The thing is that I dont understand how was this unnoticed before today ? were there any other discussions about it ? there are some on this page but irresolute. of course, if not culture that what does define borders when the two continents are practically ONE ? I think they should be included. Not sure about Kazakhstan or armenia. this is a "pain in the butt" topic, sorry for using that word.--NsNr (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * yes, I think culture is very important as well. otherwise there is no way anyone can define borders in the middle of practically one whole Eurasia, its not an island or something. I think I will move on with adding the entire populations--Polscience (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree to point 1 and 3. Point 2, however, still includes aquestion. I wonder how all the other affirmative statements are meant with respect to point 2? My opinion is to keep the regional denominations here as they are, which actually emphasizes on the transcontinentality and to add a note on the Asia page, if necessary.

Furthermore, I agree with Husond that the explanatory notes for those countries are necessary and remain.

With respect to Kazakhstan, we should keep this country in for consistency, to simply include all countries that are controversial. Otherwise, the selection of countries seems again arbitrary again. This would again call for a restart on this issue: Either because people want to remove one more country (e.g. Armenia), arguing with Kazakhstan being already excluded; or they want to bring in Kazakhstan for at least three different reasons besides arguing that even Armenia is in. Mentioning all doubtable candidates is the safest way to a sustainable solution, I think. Tomeasy (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Tomeasy, some might argue that Kazakhstan's culture is distinct from European, thus placing it in the Central Asian sphere, whereas the Caucasian states have more historical/cultural ties to Europe(At least Georgia and Armenia do, whereas Azerbaijan's culture is predominantly Iranic)


 * Yes I kind of agree that azerbajan is more iranic.--NsNr (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That's exactly what I meant! For the countries in question you will always find some arguments for and against their membership in Europe. That is why they are controversial. Kazakhstan has for example it's western part, which is for the purely geographical definitions European. You might be right about the culture. I do not want to decide on this; it would just open Pandora's box. Then we will have it again about Azerbaijan and probably won't stop there. Believe me, the only consistent rational is to list all controversial states. Tomeasy (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note Users Evpri, NsNr and Dybbtf indefinitely blocked as confirmed sockpuppets of user Polscience (also blocked for 31 hours). Hús  ö  nd  22:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Many annoying thing's at once. First of all, if your (Husond) accusation is correct, it would really make me very angry about Polscience. I had just acquired the feeling he was developing in a constructive way.
 * Second, after a discussion (which was tiresome in the beginning) I think we have reached a far stretching consensus. I have formulated what I understood as consensus again on the talk page of the following user User talk:Kesälauantait‎. So please have a look whether indeed you all agree to this or whether I was just fantasizing. The reason that I placed it on this users talk page is that he simply reverted everything, without ever joining our discussion. Most noticeable the inconsistent treatment of Armenia compared to other transcontinental countries.


 * According to me the last thing that needs to be done now in this topic: Add the European sizes in addition to the total size in those cases where this can be backed up thoroughly. This can easily be done in the case of Turkey. I can make those edits myself, but I first want to wait and see, if our current status is stable, since I do not want to indulge in edit warring. Tomeasy (talk) 09:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, just an explanation. I undid Polscience's changes as a temporary solution, as it is clear that he added more than what was discussed (maps, renaming sections as Europe extending into Asia) etc. I don't disagree with adding the full population of transcontinental countries, however this should be done with a clean slate (prior to Polscience) and with more time (perhaps give the editors who contributed to the article/table in 2006-2007, such as Corticopia a few days to respond). Also, I was concerned about the timeframe as it seemed you, Husond and JdeJ were in the middle of discussing possible solutions when the sockpuppets started appearing (Husond was considering removing Armenia but leaving all others as partial, which is also a possibility). Also, please note that Armenia was added recently (February 2008) so it was a relatively new addition, resulting in the inconsistency in the 2006-2007 version (I believe Corticopia added most of the figures for the transcontinental countries). Kesälauantait (talk) 09:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, it is clear this only became a controversial, emotional and heavy issue after Polscience : ) Kesälauantait (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you're quite right. I still support including all the countries in the Caucausus in the table, but the table should also make clear that they are not always considered Europeean. Suggestions for solutions? JdeJ (aka Talvitiistait) 10:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, what do you think about the current version which list them under European states extending into Western Asia. Every country has then an explanatory footnote. I find this a good solution. Tomeasy (talk) 10:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello, I've moved all transcontinental nations together (as Russia was forgotten). I was unsure of where to place Armenia, so it is currently under "Armenia". Cyprus could also be considered. Grinkov (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no objections with this in general, even though I liked the previous groups of European states extending into ... West-/Central-/North Asia, because it was more specific. About Armenia: Since the grouping you've introduced is very generic, namely Europe and Asia, I think we can simply place Armenia there. For sure it is either of the two and also (quite) for sure it is a transcontinental countries between these two continents. At last, I see that Cyprus has disappeared completely from the list. I disagree with this. I do not know whether you did it or where it happened, but I think it should be there like all the other transcontinentals as well. Imagine, we still have a footnote on Cyprus in the text. Tomeasy (talk) 08:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, Cyprus was already missing before my edit. I wonder where it floated to? Grinkov (talk) 11:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Might be Africa :-) Let's get it back into Europe-Asia. Tomeasy (talk) 12:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have added Cyprus to the list and also changed Armenia's isolated status incorporating it in the group named Europe and Asia. Moreover, I have given it its individual footnote. The Europe-Asia group summarizes now all transcontinental countries, with their total size.
 * I want to propose that within this part of the list we might add the European partial figures in brackets behind the total figures. The header of this group might therefore be changed to Europe and Asia (European part) or Transcontinental countries (European part). The partial figures should only be added for clearly defined partitions and explain the underlying definition in the footnote, preferably with a referred source. Tomeasy (talk) 12:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I can not believe that I got into Husonds evil trap again, How smart! just because those people were in favor does not mean that I created them and sock puppeting or whatever was the reason. I posted several post on the caucasus forum and asked people to express their opinion. to do that they created an account and they were accused of sock puppeting. the ONLY proof was that all of them had posted on the European forum only and therefore were sock puppets. OFCOURSE they did not post on anything else as they were not the regular users and even if they wanted to post on something else, they could NOT because they were blocked immediately ! there were other people who were in favor of those changes. Stop making me look like I am stupid. If I wanted sock puppeting I would somehow wait a little and make them edit completely different articles. I'am not as NAIVE  as some of the people in here might think or might want me to be.
 * after I was blocked, COMPLETELY EVERYTHING was reverted, even what was made under concensus which signifies that some user in here could not WAIT to ban me in order to implement their evil and biased plans on this website who they thinks belongs to them  and several others, and do things like "european "portion population that GOD knows where they took from and they dont even count it as a flaw. Double standards... now I know that it is "better to break your head, than to break your name" because who will believe a "silly" student like me after me trying to make someone "LOOK" european..... they will always believe  Husond (a proud european) and the likes. Thanks god that they are so "powerful" only in wikipedia and have different worthless awards. they dont have a real knowledge about "real" life.... when he was making up those "European portion" numbers under some unexisting consensus, he was very active, where is he now???! why does not he do anything to fix it ? banning me is not gonna fix it is it ? but he likes it because everything will be the way HE wants it, and who cares if its wrong. (except several people like Tomeasy and etc.) Husond - your reign is over.You may ban whoever or whatever  you want... it is not gonna help, the problem is still here and the problem is created artificially by people like you, who dont like the truth. SHAMEFUL....--Polscience (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Polscience, I will in fact block you indefinitely if you persist with this uncivil behavior and absurd accusations towards me or any other user. Hús  ö  nd  18:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to be complete. Here the confirmed evidence for Husond's accusation you were sock puppeting.
 * Then to your concern that everything has been reverted. This is not the case. Your most important point not to show arbitrarily chosen partial figures referring to undefined European fractions of the respective countries has been accounted for—though perhaps not because of your lobbing for this. Tomeasy (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to continue the thread on the real issue, i.e. the treatment of transcontinental countries—without this emotional ado.Tomeasy (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Treatment of transcontinental countries
There are still open issues:
 * 1. Currently we have one group for all transcontinental countries called Europe and Asia. We could imagine to be more specific here and have several groups like Countries extending into ... Western/Central/Northern Asia. For me both is acceptable.
 * 2. While I think there is consensus on listing all countries with figures referring to the entire country, I think it would be nice to add partial figures for European fraction under the conditions I outlined in the previous talk section above. I think people reading this table will be especially interested in these kinds of figures.
 * 3. I am not sure whether we reached consensus in the sense that all transcontinental countries should be included. However, I am strongly advocating this.

Please give your opinions to the three points. Tomeasy (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Tomeasy, I agree that all transcontinental countries be included, but also on the other pages of Asia and Western Asia the same notes in the lists must be made for these countries. In the lists on those pages it must be noted that those countries also fall into Europe and Asia as has been done here. 208.49.45.69 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are right. However, I will focus my efforts on this page here, since actually, it already takes to much of my time. So if you like, go to the mentioned pages and their discussions and push the issue. Tomeasy (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Tomeasy. In response to 1 this sounds fine although the table follows the UN classification and Northern Asia is not a UN region. In this case, a possible solution is to move Russia back up. 2 also sounds good, but this may mean moving Armenia and Cyprus into a separate category. Grinkov (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * To point 2: My idea was to add these figures only if the border is well defined, recalling the border it is based on again in the footnote. This is possible, and was already done very well in the past, for Turkey. There, you can state Bosporus, Dardanelles etc. as the border, mention the administrative districts that are European and come up with an estimate that is as exact (or not exact) as all the other entries in the table. For Georgia and Azerbaijan this procedure is almost impossible, which btw raised the initial concern in this thread. So probably they will not get the secondary data added in brackets. This would probably apply to Cyprus and Armenia as well since they usually lie beyond the borders between the continents. And if not, then they lie entirely in Europe, but a partition does not make sense to those countries. Russia and Kazakhstan, as far as I know define themselves which districts are European and which ones are Asian. In the latter case this is simply done by looking at one river. If this is right, then it should be possible in the future to add their partial data as well. So far my ideas about point 2.
 * To point 1: I agree to your argumentation with respect to the groupings. Russia is part of the Eastern European region in the UN. So, we should really not invent Northern Asia. If I may reformulate then the alternatives to point 1: Either have one group for all transcontinentals, or put each country in its UN regional group. In the letter case, the transcontinental status will only appear through a footnote, while on the other hand it would be geographically more specific and with respect to the UN regions more stringent.
 * What's your opinion to point 3?Tomeasy (talk) 08:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think either all transcontinental countries should be included, or they should be all excluded. First of all we dont even know where the borders go as they are not official, thats why we dont even know which countries are transcontinental, which are completely european or not european at all. I understand that many people rely too much on the UN classification which is absolutely not correct. even though the UN has the power to recognize the borders of a sovereign state (in case of consensus among the majority of the member states) they have nothing to do with defining borders between the continents or inside a continent.WHat these borders are, is that they were created as an administrative entitiess for THE UN, and for the Functioning of the UN and thats exactly according to what they have different parts in the organization that have to "take care" of particular regions. There are many other organization who have devided continents or some regions with their own version of borders which does not mean that they are official, its purely for their organizational functioning. if the UN will call the council session where majority of the countries in the world/continent will agree on where borders go, in case of consencus(just like on this FORUM) they can make the borders official. Until then, if noone can provide any sources that says that the UN had a session where countries VOTED / AGREED on this issue, until there is a charter that says that the borders are official and etc.these borders do not set a standard for anyone in the world. they are purely for the UN in order to implement their administrative functions.(just like the US army has different commands that have to take care of particular region in the world.)


 * [[Image:Unified Combatant Commands map.png|thumb|300px]] in this map all of those "transcontinental" countries are in the European command (which does not necesarily mean that they are european, though, because these are just the administrative entitys, for the functioning of the certain organization and etc. and nothing else)
 * We should not stop preffering the UN version over others for whatever reason it was done before.--DScheffer (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Your information is absolutely correct, but I am afraid you are aiming the wrong target. We were not using the UN regional definitions as an authority to decide which continent a country belongs to. I agree with you that this UN partition is purely intended to serve internal organizational purposes. And different organizations may use different maps - as you've correctly shown.
 * The current state of the page uses the UN regional groupings only to provide a regional grouping like (Souther Europe etc). Of course, we could invent our own grouping, but would that make sense? Wouldn't that be far less defendable, open doors to many more objects? Just watch the talk pages of Middle Europe to get an impression on how people can discuss endlessly about such a grouping. Therefore, it appears a reasonable choice to me to adopt the grouping from the UN. Again, this is not the authority, when we are talking about which countries should be mentioned on the Europe page. If we had done so, then 5 out of the 6 countries were simply out.
 * About excluding all transcontinentals. This bears much more danger for future edit wars then including all controversial countries and mentioning their hybrid status. Therefore, my personal opinion is most pronounced on point 3. I am very sure we should mention all countries. Please, do not hesitate to give your opinions. Specifically what do you think about point 2? Tomeasy (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you are mistaken. No one was using the UN scheme to define the border between Europe and Asia, he meant that they're used to sort the countries into "Western Europe", "Southern Europe" etc. With regards to the border between continents, there is a commonly agreed upon geographical border (Edit: oops Tomeasy beat me to it). Grinkov (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * To Tomeasy, your reasoning does make sense that the European portions of Russia and Kazakhstan are more easily defined and calculatable. Grinkov (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * NO. Geographical borders are not agreed by anyone Grinkov, if you think they are and you can provide a DOCUMENT signed by different countries under consencus then I will belive you.PAPERS is all that matter when it comes to defining somehting officially.I doubt that there was or still is any kind of border between the continents when in reality its just a ONE continent, eurasia. africa is separated really easily by a canal, north america and south as well. europe is not separatred by anything, only determinant of the borders throughout the history was culture which we should pay attention to.

when it comes to point 2 Tomeasy, If you think we will be able to count village by village and get the real population (which I doubt) then I agree. if not and if we will have to add a note that says that we dont know where we took the data from, then there is no need to put it at all. It would be a good solution but as borders are not defined and we dont know how large the portions in Europe are,("widely accepted borders" is not a solution) we can not do that even if we knew the real population of the region that we THINK/ASSUME is european. Grinkov I understand you might not exactly like that russia was moved to a transcontinental section by this version but I think its absulutely right thing to do.--DScheffer (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

PS. I think someone Grinkov was RUSSIAN olympic skating champion. but I am not sure.


 * I think I made my position clear on this point 2. I would appreciate, if you took a look again on what I have proposed above, because your argumentation objects things that I have never proposed. In short: You have to differentiate between the 6 counties. Two examples: For Turkey, after providing the obvious border definition, you can state the partial figures without problems. And I am certain that readers are interested in these figures, when they look up Turkey on this list. For Georgia doing the same is next to impossible, since first the geographically most prominent border (the Caucasus) is by nature kinda vague, and second this definition is difficult to cite and to backup by official data emitted by Georgia. As far as I now they do not distinguish their administrative constituencies into Asian and European. So, for the first example I would add the information and in the second not. I hope now you understand, what I have in mind. Your opinion to it ... Tomeasy (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I think this entire website knows who I am and what I think about this issue, so I will not bother you with anything else. I agree with Tomeasy's vesion with exception of point 2 with which I disagreed from the beginning and was the one who made a first VERY intense discussion. I believe if I did not make that discussion, those MADE UP numbers would be there for god knows how long. we should not put them back, even if it might seem a good solution. If you will be able to abtain some reliable data- highly unlikely - I think then I will have nothing against it at all.--Polscience (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I was looking through the website and I dont know if you noticed that Asian, and Western Asian (middle east) sections dont say anything about those countries' connection to Europe by any means. How do you think, if european section shows that some part of their land might belong to Asia, should asia say that it belong to ONLY asia ? well at least thats what maps show... I dont know if I had to write this on the European discussion but I thoug it might be interesting for some people.. we need to have discussion about that too. one or two persons alone will not be able to handle all those confusing things alone.--Rdavid (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Your concern is right. As I have already written: I would highly appreciate consistency between different wikipedia articles. However, personally the discussion on this article alone takes already too much of my time. So, please do you put efforts on the Asia page or here or wherever you like. All we need is consensus oriented contributions and everyone decides by him-/herself where to contribute. Tomeasy (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Tomeasy, I just looked at the actual article and I think when you were saying that you did not rely on the UN only, you were wrong or you just forgot to change one more thing. I know you changed things there and all those countries would be excluded if you "relied on the UN only" but then why does the article still say that the chart is made according to the UN regional division ? thats what I was talking about. I think it should be changed. I'm typing fast and dont know if what I said madee sense, but thats what I think.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DScheffer (talk • contribs) 18:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please, type slower or read faster :-) In my response to you, or Grinkov's for that matter, we were telling you that the UN regions were taken exclusively for arranging the countries in sub-groups. Your spoiling ammunition on a target that does not exist. The UN grouping is not the basis of what is discussed in this thread. Namely, which countries to put on the list and what data to show for them. Besides, instead of rephrasing your objections again and again, what is actually your proposition. Feel invited to work towards a commonly acceptable solution. Tomeasy (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sorry if I was not clear enough. if "the UN grouping is not the basis of what is discussed in this thread" then why does the article say that its based on the UN definition? in this thread we are discussing a proposed solution to a problem of whether those countries should be included and whether the etire pepulations should be included. thats what that chart is about. and thats what the article say about that that exact same chart. it says its based on the UN definition. I am sorry, I dont know how to be more clear than this :)--DScheffer (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So, what do you want? I do not see a proposition. Tomeasy (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I just thought that we had to remove " The countries in this table are categorised according to the scheme for geographic subregions used by the United Nations" from that place as the chart is not entirely based on it any more. thats what I meant. I did not mean to confuse you--DScheffer (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note that User:Polscience is a repeated abuser of this talk page. This week he has been banned twice for socket puppeting. Namely, the accounts on Evpri, NsNr, Dybbtf, DScheffer, Rddddavid are nothing else than his infamous intention to corrupt the discussion on this topic. Tomeasy (talk) 09:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding F.Y.R.O.Macedonia
F.Y.R.O.M. (aka Republic of Macedonia) is mentioned in two sections of this article, namely "Religions" and "Political Geography". The former uses the name "Republic of Macedonia", the latter uses "Macedonia".

I propose that the form "Republic of Macedonia" be used EVERYWHERE in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.195.250.2 (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:MOSMAC. Hús  ö  nd  23:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

England/United Kingdom
Do we have a consensus on when we should say 'England' and when we should say 'Britian' or 'United Kingdom'?  Harland1 (t/c) 13:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Geographically it's pretty clear what the difference is - the island of Great Britain contains the nations of England, Scotland and Wales. Using "England" to refer to the whole island is simply a mistake, IMHO. The United Kingdom (as a country) also includes Ulster (Northern Ireland), as well as numerous smaller islands that aren't considered "nations". However, the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey are not part of the UK, but direct dependencies of the British Crown (although the British government represents them in some areas by agreement, it doesn't control them). Apologies if I've got any of this wrong! – FIRE!  in a crowded theatre...  10:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you did not get anything wrong as far as I can see. The definitions are very clear. Permitted, it is a little bit more complicated than with some other countries :-) Tomeasy (talk) 10:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What I was really wondering was whether there is a date after which we refer to Great Britian and before which we refer to England. <span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif;> Harland1 (t/c) 18:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In deed, that's a better question. Please, leave a message here when you know more. Tomeasy (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Act of Union 1707 (which brought England and Scotland under one government) also established the new country name: United Kingdom of Great Britain. The Act of Union 1800 did the same with Ireland, and "and Ireland" was added to the end of the country name. It was changed to "and Northern Ireland" following Irish independence in 1922. Wales has never been mentioned in the name; it was always a princedom after England annexed it in the 1500s. Hope this helps. – <font color="FF3333" face="arial">FIRE! <font color="000033" face="arial"> in a crowded theatre... 19:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks. Tomeasy (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Although often used interchangeably, Ulster and Northern Ireland are not synoymous. Ulster (one of the four provinces of Ireland) consists of nine counties, three in the Republic of Ireland and six in Northern Ireland.


 * Although not correct, England (for historic and other reasons) is often used informally to refer to all of the United Kingdom just as Holland is similarly used to refer to all of the Netherlands. Hebbgd (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

GA fail
Sorry, but I don't even have to read this to see that it fails... The two above spotted quickly scrolling through the article is enough for me to fail... sorry. Renata (talk) 23:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Coverage: a lot of verbiage is devoted to geography / geology, etc. while politics / demography / religion / economy is short and rather poor. Especially bad is the religion section: one quite messy list. Also there is no section for culture.
 * 2) Citations: some sections (like climate or biodiversity or definitions) is completely unsourced. Even the lead cites statistics, but does not give citations....

borders of Europe
can somebody provide the borders of the continent Europe? Black sea, Bosporus, Marmara, Dardanelles channel or what?, the lowest parts of Aegean sea (8th district of Greece is in Asia)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilhanli (talk • contribs) 12:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

territory and regions
there has to be a more of an inclusion of other points of view of european regions it seems somebody liked the u.n pov of the region of europe and has left out unesco and the cia world fact book,for instance the world fact book has spain as south western europe and great britain western europe,and until this is incorperated into the article some how the neutrality of the page is disputed,there needs to be a seperate columm with the cia world fact book definitions of region of europe right above the un's or below it,to make it neutral--Wikiscribe (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Something amiss in Scotland
A conversation about the current maps used to represent the constituent countries has been started at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography. This discussion is hopefully to resolve issues that have been raised and to try to set a standard within the UK. For all those that wish to comment on this, your input is requested. Thank-you :-) – UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Christopher Columbus discovered the New World in the 1492, not 1498
In the last paragraph of History -> Early modern period. Correct that, please, I can't do it myself since the article is protected and I don't have an account ;). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.79.47.247 (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

i think who fashioned that paragraph got confused he discovered the americas in 1492, but did not get to mainland america until 1498 so i changed it to 1492 because i think that would be more accurate--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Mainland America, that doesn't matter. Florida used to be Spain's. Louisianna used to be French. The carribbean was (and is still) English, spanish, dutch, and American. Why not 1500, when the east coast was discovered, or whatever. It should be 1492 when Columbus landed in the Bahamas. Mayday2010 (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

i had agreeed and did change it to 1492 than somebody changed it back to 1498 than now somebody fixed it again back to 1492--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Discovered? Perhaps it should say "rediscovered". Leif Erikson (a.k.a Lief the Lucky) discovered North America circa 1000. A settlement was established in Newfoundland at L'Anse aux Meadows. Hebbgd (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I rather thought it was a viking merchant ship a few years before that. Leif Erikson is usually given as the first European to ACTUALLY LAND in the New World. A little while after columbus, I believe Cabot was the first 15th Century European to actually reach the mainland. There has also been a controversial opinion (the subject of a recent book) that says that the Chinese went there in the early 15th Century, and that alleged voyage has also been claimed as a Muslim discovery due to the religion of certain of the people who allegedly planned and allegedly undertook the alleged "Chinese" voyage. (Lots of "alleged"s because some folk think that the facts for the "Chinese" expedition have been carefully selected and manipulated to demonstrate the case being made, no doubt to increase the sales of the book) Of course, the indigenous American people also "discovered" America c. 10,000 BC Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 01:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have changed the verb to reached. He didn't even rediscover.  Please don't forget Native Americans are real humans just like Europeans and they have been there for more than 10,000 years.  - T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 08:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The sentence in the history section clearly refers to the European discovery of the New World. On the 1492 voyage Columbus did not discover North America, only some of the Carribean islands and parts of South America. Thank you, Mathsci (talk) 08:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Leif Erikson was European, wasn't he? ;) Columbus appears to have reached "America" as part of a successful exploration/colonisation thing. More than that does not seem to be strictly true. Be a devil of a job making into a decent sentence though. ;)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 20:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Greetings. This problem has presumably already been solved by many (politically correct) historians. The section is about the age of discovery, so the problem might be solved by the following kind of sentence: "Although the Icelandic sagas record the voyages of Leif Erikson to Newfoundland, it was only five hundred years later from 1492 onwards that the expeditions of Christopher Columbus and others opened up the New World to European colonization." What do you think? Mathsci (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello, again. Sounds good, But it doesn't seem to fit the paragraph.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Germany
Germany is not the third economy in the world.. I think that is Japan, so I'm deleting that mention in the part of Economy. --Enkiduk (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You may want to refresh your knowledge on List of countries by GDP (nominal). Just out of curiosity, when you were thinking that Japan was third, which countries did you think were second and first? Tomeasy (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Russia
The population for Russia should be 100 million, that is the european portion. Why is only istanbul (european part of turkey) counted but yet the ENTIRE country of russia is included? Mayday2010 (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked at Istambul and Turkey and seems to me like it is entirely included as well. so there are no problems with what you just said. Russia's entire population is included ,too ,just like other transcontinental states because the sources for the "partial" population could not be provided for us to verify where those numbers came from. you should see the notes as well and I hope they explain everything.--UltioUltionis (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Maps for the constituent countries in the UK
I have created the above maps. I hope you all don't mind that I was WP:BOLD and added them to the relative articles myself. I really don't want to create any edit wars I just want to see what others think and hopefully bring this to a nice consensus on what to use. I hate the idea that other countries seam to be more organized then us with these things, so I hope you think the new one looks professional... I'm actually kinda pleased :-) Please voice your opinion over at Talk:Scotland I know I'd personally love to hear your opinions! Thanks – UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Congrats :) <span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif;> Harland1 (t/c) 18:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Economic growth
The first of the subsections is extremely poorly written, with no sources. It seems to be the personal opinion of the author and contradicts the history section. Various statements are quite dubious. The extraordinarily high reparations demanded by the US following its late participation in World War I are not mentioned, nor the depression. Decolonisation, which had been happening gradually over a long period to almost all countries in Europe, is inexplicably linked to World War II. Please get at least one book on European economic history and check these facts before adding WP:OR. Mathsci (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In what way does it contradict the history section, have provided some refs and will provide more. Thank you for your comments. <span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif;> Harland1 (t/c) 17:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The first two references/page numbers you added make no reference at all to what you wrote, as I just checked on google books. Please see the WP articles on the Great Depression and Decolonization. Better still get hold of a history or economics book. Mathsci (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry about the first ref you removed, it was valid but in the wrong place. The second one I do not own the book and pg. 29 is not available to see on google books, so if you own it and it does not mention the UK's economic decline, then I am sorry. I got it from WWII and assumed that it would be correct, so sorry for wasting your time. <span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif;> Harland1  (t/c) 04:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Page 29 was available for me: what can be seen on google books depends on whether the user is identified on google or not. Both references were incorrect justifications of the sentences they accompanied. It looks as if you just added random references: that was poor scholarship and quite unhelpful/misleading for other WP editors/readers. You are stretching WP:AGF to the limits here. As you are probably aware you may not use WP as a source. You may of course use WP as a check, but you must cite secondary sources. Please find a library or bookshop (eg the UL in Cambridge if you have readership rights or CUP) and provide proper references. To edit the history section I actually bought 2 extra history books in English (Hobsbawm and J.M.Roberts), not so easy here in France. As noted in the history section, decolonization of European colonies had been gradually happening since the end of the 19th century. In Britain's case, India became independent after World War II, not during it: if you are indicating some relation between the two that is WP:OR, unless you can quote a secondary source. Next, according to Hobsbawm and other historians, it was possibly US isolationism and the huge reparations that the USA demanded following its late participation in World War I that contributed to the post-war destabilization of Germany and of other European states in the mid twenties and the Wall Street Crash and the global Great Depression in the thirties. However this might not be a view held by all historians. I think this instability was properly described in the history section, without attributing causes. Please (a) get one or two books on this topic; (b) don't use WP as a source; (c) don't duplicate/contradict material already covered in the history section; (d) find and add links to mainspace WP articles that already treat this topic in detail. Mathsci (talk)
 * I wasn't using WP as a source I did not add random references, I saw on the WWII article that it said that the UK had entered a period of economic decline after the war and it gave a source, I repeated the statement and the source, maybe I should not have done, I will not do so in future. I'm 14 so I do not have access to the UL but I will get a book on the subject and use it to back up my statements, and I will add a source which I have which does connect WWII with the loss of India and other Asian possessions. <span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif;> Harland1 (t/c) 06:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "I got it from WWII" - that sounds as if your using WP as a source. I'm sorry, but I don't see any other way of interpreting that. Mathsci (talk) 06:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) I still find the first section of what you have written is not very good. You mention the Industrial Revolution. Then you talk about Germany: what precisely do you mean by Germany in the 19th century? And what about the Austro-Hungarian empire? The first section is still not good: how can you not mention the Great Depression? Did economies recover significantly prior to WWII? It is not at all clear to me that the first section is needed since most of this is covered in the history section. Why not restrict yourself to post-World War II development? Mathsci (talk) 06:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems that you based this section on Economy of Europe, with some of your own extra additions. You used almost the same sentences / sentence structure. It seems that you were using in fact that WP article as a source. Oh dear. Mathsci (talk) 07:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes you're right, I didn't think when you said don't use WP as a source. I was too obsessed with trying to prove myself right about those sources. (I have spoken to the user who inserted them to WWII and he says that he did use the wrong source and has now added one which he assures me is correct, but if you think I should not use it I will try and find another one.) I have no defence. I will leave Europe and possibly WP, if I come back I will consider my edits much more carefuly. Thankyou for all your time and I will certainly learn a lot from this regrettable incident. (I might come back when I've saved enough to buy a book on the economy). Deary me <span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif;> Harland1 (t/c) 12:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * On second thoughts I will not leave, that was a spur of the moment, disheartened comment. However I'm really don't think I can afford an economic history book worth having. :( (that is not a lame excuse). I will try and stick to the books I already own. (Though that would limit me to WWII, Roman/Greek literature, philosophy and the Tudors) :) <span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif;> Harland1 (t/c) 13:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There are good sources online too ... Tomeasy (talk) 13:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes of course... <span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif;> Harland1 (t/c) 14:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What I was trying to say: Scarcity of money is no reason to abandon your here. You've added a substantial amount of text. Let's try to put it in a form now that meets the quality ambitions of wikipedia. Tomeasy (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes I understand. <span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif;> Harland1 (t/c) 15:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The biggest country
I don't think that the intro to Europe is correct. It mentions Russia as the largest country in Europe. I agree that the territory in Europe is big, however, isn't Russia defined technically as an asian country? In the intro, it is made seem that Russia is an European country all together. So, also technically, should Russia be considered The Largest Country of Europe since it is technically Asian? It needs to be cleared up.--Hpfa1 (talk) 14: 43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * How do you come to the idea that Russia is technically Asian and what do you mean by it?
 * I think there is consensus here that Russia lies with parts in Asia and parts in Europe. We might however soon leave consensus, if we take about the definition of that border. Most commonly, it would be assumed as the Caspian sea, Ural river, Ural mountains, but I really do not want to open this discussion. I think it was also not your question. You might want to have a look on how, e.g. the UN groups its member countries in geographical regions. Some people have pointed out that this is not necessarily the ultimate source for making such a decision. However, and here I come back to my initial question, which source of yours would ultimately claim that it is Asian? Tomeasy (talk) 07:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's avoid original research here. There are no sources to suggest Russia would be "technically Asian". The majority of the Russian population lives in European Russia and that part of the country alone is large enough to be the biggest country in Europe as well as host the largest population. In other words, the introduction is correct. JdeJ (talk) 08:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Russia is considered a European country because its historical core as well as most of its population (74%), economic activity and political institutions (such as its capital city) in Europe, yet geographically most of the territory (77%) is actually in Asia. I added this to the article.--Miyokan (talk) 03:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The Europes
Shouldn't we move this article to "The Europes", since the word "Europe" is such an ambiguous term as it can describe both the European Union and the European continent as a whole...-? 141.35.186.133 (talk) 12:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Definitely not JdeJ (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. That mean, I go with JdeJ. Tomeasy (talk) 13:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No <span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif;> Harland1 (t/c) 18:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Gulf Stream water temperature.jpg
Is this the image that should be in the climate section? Actually, it isn't in the climate section, it is in the geography section below it. Robbiemuffin (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Number of countries
This is obviously one great big kettle of fish but... the intro text mentions "Europe's 48 countries" while the infobox says it has 50 countries. Presumably this is because there's arguments over which countries to include, but it looks odd! MorganaFiolett (talk) 11:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely right. I agree in all aspects you've mentioned. So, let's just make it both 50 and see, if there is dispute arising from that. An alternative would be to not include this figure at all, but I would like to avoid this as the order of magnitude is an interesting fact, whether it is 48 or 50. Tomeasy (talk) 11:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

To give an overview of the states of Europe situation and to ease potential discussion I present the following list:
 * States that are undoubtedly in Europe and universally recognized:
 * 26 EU countries, all 27 except Cyprus
 * 8 western countries (Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, Lichtenstein, Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, Vatican)
 * 6 countries on the Balkans (Croatia, Bosnia H., Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Albania)
 * 3 eastern countries (Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus)
 * This totals to 43 countries, which according to me is the absolute minimum figure to state. However, I also believe that this figure is highly controversial and would invite many users to edit warring.


 * States whose geographical location is transitional between Europe and Asia or it is even disputed whether they give any motivation to being classified European at all:
 * 7 countries Cyprus, Turkey, Russia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Georgia
 * States, who enjoy de facto independence but whose de jure independence is disputed
 * 6 countries Kosovo, Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria
 * This way, all together one could speak of 56 countries.

My opinion is that we will certainly not come to consensus, if we go into the details and start discussing, e.g. whether Kosovo should be included when summing up the presented figure. Therefore, I would argue to leave the figure 50 as it is, It appears also to some extend just as an order of magnitude, which I think is the message we should convey. Perhaps one might add somewhere that the precises number depends on contentious issues or so. Tomeasy (talk) 09:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that this list is to a certain extend subjective. E.g. I purposely excluded countries like Sealand, which are IMHO ridiculous.


 * "50" will still be interpreted as "exactly 50", so should really be taken out as POV. It could be changed to "approximately 50" of course, or some similar expression that does not implicitly involve either of the statements "Kosovo is a country" and "Kosovo is not a country", because I simply don't think we can be that categorical either way, with Kosovo being recognized by almost exactly half of the European countries. (Knocking on wood, it seems I stilled an edit war at Central Serbia by simply including both views.) – Jao (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please, don't go into the Kosovo discussion here. The question here is virtually independent from it, since Kosovo is by far not the only country whose inclusion is questionable. In fact, there are hundreds of combinations that yield the number 50 and include Kosovo as there are hundreds of combinations that equally yield 50 but exclude Kosovo. If you study the list that I provided above you could for example come to 50 by summing up the first 43 and the later 7 countries.
 * I think with the first point you mentioned you really hit the target, i.e., the question we should discuss here. How to deal with the fact that we cannot state a precise number in an indisputable way? Perhaps you are right and we should include approximately, ca., or ~ in the prose and the info box respectively. I could live with that. In this case the number 50 would still make best sense. However, there is one thing I do not like about this. The articles on Asia and Africa state precise numbers, whereas they should be having the same problem that we have (e.g. Republic of China, Western Sahara). What do you and others think about this? Tomeasy (talk) 07:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm perfectly fine with 50 if it's qualified in some way. Likewise, we are fooling ourselves if we think we can have exact numbers at Asia and Africa. Either an approximate figure or a possibility span would do. – Jao (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. Let's see, if our opinion (using something like approximately 50) stands undisputed for some days. If so, then we just add the qualifiers to the numbers. I will send a message to inform the user who initiated this. Tomeasy (talk) 08:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I know that Council of Europe which has more members than any other european organization says there are 47. thats because Belarus is excluded as it is not the member because of their dictatorial regime. so I think it should be 48. I dont think that we should worry too much about unrecognized or autonomous states that someone mentioned before. I also went to the European Union website and found this: Member and Non-member European states


 * http://europa.eu/abc/european_countries/others/index_en.htm


 * if we dont do it according to the EU version, than I dont know according to what we should do it. I thought the EU was most well known authoritative european organization.I dont think there is a any factual error or something.I hope this website will make things clearer.--Regina Bremer (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please note that User: Regina Bremer is a sock puppet of a notoriously disruptive user who has been blocked indefinitely . Tomeasy (talk) 07:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Why are you trying to mask the ambiguity with a number? Instead of saying, "there are x countries," say what the ambiguity is and what each opinion is.  I think all of these opinions are equally important for inclusion in the article.  Until this week, I thought Europe had a set amount of countries that was accepted internationally.  So just replace the certainty with the message of the ambiguity, and leave an explanation for it as well. Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We aren't trying to mask anything. Just in contrast, we thought of adding a qualifier to attribute the ambiguity.
 * Did you really think there were international treaties as to which countries are Europe? If so, you must be very lucky, because you managed successfully to bypass the tiresome and (my opinion) senseless discussions on Turkey/Georgia/Armenia is/isn't/is_both Europe/Asia. Unfortunately, there are different concepts, majority and minority opinions and filled Wikipedia talk pages :-)
 * To the point: I like the idea of adding a phrase explaining the inability to state the true number in the text. But what would you do in the infobox. I propose to put ca. 50 or ~50 in there. A number, however, should be given to help people who quickly want to see, which continents contain the most/least states. I think this is an inherent task of the infobox. Not clear to me from your objection is whether you advocate to make any numeral statement. Do you want to say there are something between 43 and 56 states and than iterate through all possibilities? Please clarify what you propose. Tomeasy (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am very Upset that RUSSIA is listed as asiatic country. Russia, despite the fact that has a great deal of its territory in Asia is not asian. It started in europe and then expanded to Asia, that does not make them Asian.I dont think that anyone will ever agree on this unless the countries mentioned above will actually join the EU or something like that.(I doubt that it will ever happen in case of Russia).
 * The EU lists Russia and several other disputed countries as a European:

http://europa.eu/abc/european_countries/others/russia/index_en.htm I really do not understand why is everything arranged according to the UN when we are talking about Europe page, The EU version seems like a logical solution to me, but I guess thats not what some people think. They can cite the EU whenever they want but ignore it whenever they dont. Bob the Wikipedian does not even make sense. what does it mean "mask"ing something? I think we should do the whole thing according to the EU version and Russia should definitely be included as European and nothing else. --Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey Mariya, please relax. Who listed Russia as Asiatic and where? I am afraid you mean me. Well, be assured that this would be a misunderstanding. If my concern is correct then please read the header of the respective list again and try to understand what it says and what not. I think we both do agree that Russia has territory on both continents and that it's center (in many ways) lies in Europe. Hence, I would definitely argue that it should be included in any list of European states that occurs at a simple name dropping.
 * However, your concern misses the target completely. It is not to discuss about any of the countries individually, it is about dealing with the fact that there are multiple definitions (all would probably include Russia) with multiple results. So, if you can leave your emotions concerning Russia outside for a moment, do you then have an idea on how we should manage this. Tomeasy (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe "mask" is the wrong word. Maybe "simplify" was a better word.  To tell you the truth, I was not aware of any of this before.  I am from North America, where the borders are fairly obvious (from the top of the world to the Panama/Columbia border).  I, personally, have always recognized there being a sort of "dotted line", if you will, through Turkey and Russia, splitting them between Europe and Asia.  Guess I didn't ever realized there were any other discrepancies, although in the game of Risk,  I have noticed Ukraine is considered part of Europe.  Although I'm not aware of the numbers or the names of the systems, I would recommend a format like this:
 * Supposing there are 49 countries in a system we'll call the Smith System, 52 countries according to a system called the Armenian System, and 51.5 countries according to a system called the Split-Nation System, you might notate it as such (all in the same cell, separated by newline characters:


 * 52 (Armenian)
 * 49 (Smith)
 * 51.5, including parts of Turkey, Armenia, and Georgia (Split-Nation)


 * I'm sure the notation could use a bit of formatting, such as italics or small print, but you get the idea.Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Why so abstract, Bob? I understand you are from another continent, but I am sure you can still make an educated proposition. Perhaps the list that I have provided above might help you.
 * I am afraid that, with your suggestion, we might easily come to a tenfold of different versions and that is not suitable for the infobox. Also I am afraid of future edit warring, since we would make clear who's in and who's out and you have just seen Mariya's reaction, who apparently thought somebody wanted to tell Russia Asian. Be assured there are plenty of emotional wikipedians ready to argue ardently over disputed countries like Turkey, Armenia, Georgia, Cyprus. Therefore, I would actually like to keep it a little bit masked. Tomeasy (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I tend to think logically, as a computer scientist, and tend to make things a bit abstract like that. Perhaps the real question is this: If a continent has no set boundaries, why is there a "Countries" section in the Infobox?  Should this simply be removed?  If not, perhaps the proper move is to replace the number with "see text." Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am Sorry Tomeasy. I am not emotional at all. I just wanted to explain that despite the fact that the initial UN only version has been edited (I assume by you as you mentioned above) and now includes other countries and it is a good thing, I was saying that until it will be based on the UN geoscheme which is really nothing else than a regional division for the UN only, I dont think we will ever resolve this problem. if someone made this chart and cited the UN as a source and does not wanted anyone to change it, it is possible to make new one and cite the EU as a source. Is the EU any less than the UN especially when we talk about Europe?No. That is why I am for it. I understand that you are not a robot and cant do everyhting but thats just my idea. sorry for my spelling and grammar. am not emotional and I am not angry so dont worry--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Good to know you're cool. You are advocating one source, which is reputable and absolutely fine. However, there are plenty of reputable sources with slightly different statements. You would probably argue a lot if anyone here wanted to exclude Russia from this article. What do you think, will people with sentiments for Turkey or Kosovo do when we used your source as the only and ultimate reference? They would, of course, fight ardently against it.
 * Therefore, let's avoid following strictly one source and revealing the details of the list. Why not say ca. 50 and mention the problems of counting in the text and stating 2 or 3 contradicting references. Tomeasy (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way: this discussion is not about the list of countries section, which includes so many non-state territories (Faeroe, Jersey, Aland etc.) and thus comes to even more entries. You might open a new thread for this if you like. The discussion here is simply on the number of countries stated in the info box and twice in the earlier paragraphs. Please, keep this in mind, it will ease our discussion. Tomeasy (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I will give it a try. Let me know what you think about. Tomeasy (talk) 04:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks good enough to me! – Jao (talk) 12:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not the real Mariya Oktiabrskaya, which is spelt Mariya Oktyabrskaya, who hasn't edited since February. Russians consider their country to be in Europe and Asia. Grinkov (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Image
Why is Europe's leading image inconsistent with North America's, Asia's, Australia's, South America's, Africa's, and Antarctica's? Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 02:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've replaced the image. Any objections, take them up here! Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 02:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is Russia not in Eastern Europe Section on the Chart?
Is it too big to fit there or what? who did even make this chart, and based on what is it made ?

--Glacierhunter (talk) 01:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

well the regions section i have disputed a long time ago because it only gives u.n region pov of europe ,but you are right russia is missing from the eastern europe box--Wikiscribe (talk) 02:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I personally have always thought of Russia as an Eastern European country, but the problem I think is that not all of the country is in Europe, and not all of its inhabitants may have a "European" culture. It looks like it was included in the Transcontinental Europe and Asia region instead. Was this a new term that was just made up for Wikipedia?  I'm not sure what the sources say though, but I was under the impression that the majority of the population in Russia lives on the European side.  I don't have a strong feeling either way, but I'm not sure what the sources say.  Kman543210 (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

i agree i always thought of russia as just eastern europe but i looked it up and apparently its where it should be but it is still just a eastern european country to me lol--Wikiscribe (talk) 02:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I dont know about Russia but I know that Turkey should definitely be included. It is even in the process of joining the EU (as far as I know). or what about Georgia and other countries ? At the beginning it says that its based on the UN geoscheme and then its all messed up. EU official websites lists Turkey as European. Take a look at the rest of the countries too. I dont see Kazakhstan ANYWHERE! I think we should base the whole thing on one source and I dont believe that there is anything more credible in European affairs than the EU itself. what do you think ? --TurkeyKnight (talk) 03:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Turkey are all included in the Transcontinental Europe and Asia section boxes, probably because they span both continents. I'm not sure that's it's a question of culture, linguistics, or what organizations you belong to, but maybe a geographic one. I know there is a "lively" debate going on at Talk:European ethnic groups about Turkey and what, if any, parts should be included. Kman543210 (talk) 03:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I know the whole story about Armenia and Georgias location and cultural ties but I was shocked when I saw Kahakhstan. I just could not make the ends meet. it was like a complete surprise. I would highly be in favor of using hte EU model to make a New chart. --TurkeyKnight (talk) 03:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "I dont see Kazakhstan ANYWHERE!" Just take a second look. T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 09:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am sorry Tomeasy for this misunderstanding. I was talking about Kazakhstan on the EU list and other lists that I looked at. I was not talking about the current list on wikipedia. If you will go to that link you will see that Its not there. I did not say that I dont see Kazakhstan anywhere because I want it to be there. Its just that I dont understand why is it even in transcontinental section.--TurkeyKnight (talk) 13:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Kazakhstan has parts on the right side of the river Ural, which is commonly assumed as the geographical border between Europe and Asia. Note that the right side is the western side. Why do you place a link to Iceland in this discussion? A last comment: The EU is not Europe. The sum of EU member states plus states applying for membership is not congruent with Europe. Is it necessary to give examples for this? T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 13:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It was on iceland because I was skimming though and I had to push on something to be able to copy the link for whatever reasons. I understand that the EU is not Europe but I provided Three links exactly because it shows Member states, candidate states (where Turkey is listed), and Other states. I could just give the link to candidate states section where Turkey is but I dont want anyone to accuse me of pushing forward some nationalistic interests and other things. I skimmed though discussions and there are tons of those accusations and theres also a huge debate about Turkic peoples on one of the sections.I dont want all that mess. I believe that the EU list (or let me say combination of "member", "candidate" and "other"lists )can not be any more complete. It does not show just the member and candidates otherwise taking it as an example would really be incorrect and that is something that we both agree on I guess.--TurkeyKnight (talk) 13:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So what's driving you? You want Kazakhstan off the list? You want the list to be based on your links only? You want to change the grouping? Do you want to treat Turkey and Russia as only European here and avoid stating that they are also Asian? Do you thin they should not be mentioned on the Asia article?
 * Clearly the current state of the list is not perfect. IMHO there exists no perfect solution to this, because some questions here cannot be clearly answered. However, if think you can propose something better, just do so in a clear way. I am sure everyone is open to improve the article. T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 14:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * TurkeyKnight, with all due respect I dont think that this thread was created about Turkey. It was about Russia and I dont know why did this discussion even took place here. Anyways, I do agree that something needs to be done but do you have any Specific proposal?--Glacierhunter (talk) 14:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Glacierhunter next time please dont get angry about things that you should definitely not be angry about. This is a problem and its not just Russian problem so please understand.When it comes to "Specific" proposals. I believe the biggest problem of this chart is that it has Sections.(such as north europe, south europe and etc) people here object not just the fact that they might not be listed as "fully" European but also to what section they belong to even if they are "fully" european. I think we just have to get rid of the sections and make one long chart with all the current information arranged alphabetically. When it comes to Tomeasy's comment that im tyring to "avoid stating that they are also Asian?" I think we should mention that they are Asian but it should happen though the notes and references. That way there will be less confusion and also for the information:people do not object being included here, people object if they are Not included.So I do not believe that after making a "full" list someone will really be against it as long as they are not motivated by some Nationalistic hatred and prejudices such as in case of some "proud Europeans". --TurkeyKnight (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * TurkeyKnight, I did not comment that you are trying this or that. I was simply asking whether you want this or that. I do not believe in putting statements in other peoples mouth. So please do not accuse me so. I have also asked you whether you want Kazakhstan off the list. Perhaps you would still like to answer to this.
 * Taking the UN grouping off the list is a very pragmatic approach. It would save us a lot of discussion in the future. On the other hand we would loose the information as to which countries are in which part of Europe. This is (especially if you leave all this exaggerated controversies out) simply an interesting information. So, I would prefer to keep this information. At the same time I am growing increasingly tired explaining and defending it. T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 15:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Tomeasy, I understand that you are not the one who made this entire thing. I am not trying to offend anyone or something. I am saying that Yes, Kazakhstan should be off the list. I also believe that despite the fact that regions inside the continent are important, the UN model can not be a neutral . we should get rid of it completely and finish these long discussions. these region classifications give even more headache. For Example many believe the baltic states are in eastern europe but it lists them as northern europe. The Czech republic is listed as in Eastern Europe while Austria which is just in the same spot is in western europe. the borders are practically according to the cold war era beliefs.--TurkeyKnight (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Excluding Kazakhstan, however, will open doors for more discussions in the future. And I will understand those who want it included. The commonly agreed on border definition (I am not saying unanimously!) between Europe and Asia in this region is the Ural as it is the Bosporus elsewhere. Consequently, as Turkey has its part in Europe, so does Kazakhstan. In general, it is more dangerous to excluded countries from this list then to include them. People can feel quite offended not finding some country while they can more easily accept that an additional, somewhat controversial country is also mentioned.
 * You are right that the UN definitions are not universal. Actually they reflect partly the geopolitics of post WWII. I also agree that the UN is not the all overruling authority in this question. I only defend it, because I find some geographical classification an interesting additional information, while on the other hand I want to avoid naming multiple classifications stemming from various institutions. After all, the UN is seen as the most neutral general multinational body. So if we have to decide for one classification, which I promote, then this would be the obvious choice. T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 16:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all I do not believe that most people in Kazakhstan will insist that they are European (I am almost sure about that) however, we still can include them as it is "widely" accepted that they have part of their land in europe but by just adding the NOTE explaining the situation. I think having a separate section is just too much. --TurkeyKnight (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And I did not claim that most people in Kazakhstan will insist that they are European. As I explained to you, it is a part of the country. Anyway...
 * Does Polscience ring a bell for you? T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 17:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I know you did not say that people in Kazakhstan would insisit. It was just an assumption.My assumption.Why wont we just try to do it that way and then see if anyone has any objection.
 * also, Ring the bell ? what do you mean ? --TurkeyKnight (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Do it what way? Exclude Kazahstan? I oppose excluding this country as I also oppose excluding any of Russia, Turkey, Georgia, and Azerbaijan.
 * I think you are user: polscience T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 17:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: user: TurkeyKnight and user: Glacierhunter have been identified to be a sock puppet of user: Polscience and was consequently blocked. Therefore, they cannot continue this discussion. I have removed a huge table Turkeyknight had put here, which bascically did not show any new content. It was identical to the one in the article with the exclusion of regional groupings. T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 15:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

nominal GDP vs PPP GDP
user: Tpbradbury recently changed the economy section in a way that it compares now the volume of European economies—such as Germany, UK, France—to other national economies based on GDP in PPP. That does not make sense, and I reverted these changes. When we want to derives statements like Germany is the third largest economy world-wide than the underlying data has to be based on a universal (for all equal) currency and not on the purchasing power within the respective countries. The GDP PPP (per capita) is a good concept when talking about the average richness of people living in one country. Then we are interested in how much people can buy in the place they live. However, translating this concept to the comparison of economic volumes, makes the comparison subject to the local prices, while the intention is simply to compare the output of the economies. That is, if two economies produce exactly the same goods and provide the same services, their economies have the same nominal size but potentially different PPP sizes. The question basically is: Do we want to compare the volume of economies objectively or not? T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 16:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, yes there are problems using ppp, unfortunately using nominal values is worse. Comparison of GDP from one country to another can be distorted by movements in exchange rates e.g. if a country's exchange rate drops by 20% in a year, it's nominal gdp in dollars would drop by the same amount even though the economy might still be roughly the same size. Measuring national income at ppp can overcome this problem e.g. world bank says "Using PPPs instead of market exchange rates to convert currencies makes it possible to compare the output of economies" Tom (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Your criticism about the nominal GDP with respect to exchange rates is correct. However, those rates might change 20% up and down in a year. The PPP ratio of German prices to Indian prices is larger than 500%. That means, the objective output of the German economy needs to be five times as high as that of India in order to be reported the same. It's relatively easy to see that this bias is much stronger than the exchange rate fluctuation.
 * I would like to propose to you that we keep the state of the article as it was before we started this discussion until more people have voiced their opinion here. When a prevalence for one of the two choices becomes clear among the group of editors here, we can still change if applicable. T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 21:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "PPP ratio of German prices to Indian prices is larger than 500%" have you got any sources to back that claim up? The world bank says, "Using PPPs instead of...exchange rates...makes it possible to compare the output of economies." Pretty definitive no?  What sources have you got that say the contrary? Tom (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Check this out. T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 08:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Erm, that's a map with price level data from 5 years ago. How does that prove your point regarding claim of current indian vs german prices and vs  Have you got anything which might refute the World Bank's claim? Tom (talk) 09:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it does back the claim regarding the year 2003. How does it make a point to post three times the same reference? T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 17:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It might back-up a claim that the price ratio was 500% 5 years ago, unfortunately your claim above was that the ratio is 500%. The point I was making was that it would be good if you used sources to back-up your assertion and suggested that to you above. Given you've had the opportunity 3 times, as you say, and you don't appear to have any sources to back-up your claim, don't you think we'll have to revert? It also seems insensitve that you 'propose' above that we keep the state of the article as before - particularly when that state now seems wrong - and then after this 'proposal' you reverted without discussing. Tom (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You can also find the price ratio in your own reference, which uses data from 2005. There it is 3.4. OK, now we have one value from your source and it makes strikingly more a difference than exchange rate fluctuations. So what comes next: You don't care about this huge price ratio anymore after discussing back and forth its current value? Furthermore, let me point out that in this report, Worldbank states both nominal and PPP values for the GDP.
 * You are saying the current state of the article seems wrong. That's not what all this should be about. Both measurements can very well be correct. I even recommend that we assume they are. It's simply about deciding which one makes more sense. Which notion conveys better what we are trying to express?
 * Apropos proposal. Let's get this straight. You've changed the long-standing version, being bold (that's fine). Then I reverted and you re-reverted. Now, with starting this talk section I reinstalled the status ante, proposing that we finish this discussion and then implement our conclusion. So what are you accusing me for? T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 20:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we should use PPP to compare the size of countries economies rather than nominal values as I think the exchange rate effects distort the nominal comparison; the world bank thinks ppp should be used too . We're not really getting anywhere here in terms of useful, current sources on the other side of the argument. Please can some other editors intervene to end this particular dispute either way. cheers Tom (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As I expected: After solving the price ratio issue it is not relevant to you any more ;-)
 * Anyway, I agree with you that we should hear more opinions and I will not stand in the way when it should come to change the content. Some people also discussed the question here, with interesting and partially the same arguments. I think we have both laid out our respective opinions quite clearly. At least, I think I have understood your point and you have probably gotten mine, too. So, anyone else please ...  T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 17:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please, anyone else, we currently have a tie here! This keeps the version alive that I advocate :-) However, this should not be the reason for it and it appears also unfair to me, if this was the only reason. T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 17:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Definitely PPP, PPP is way more useful than nominal GDP. From Wikipedia: Purchasing power parity
 * Using a PPP basis is arguably more useful when comparing differences in living standards on the whole between nations because PPP takes into account the relative cost of living and the inflation rates of different countries, rather than just a nominal gross domestic product (GDP) comparison.

more importantly, from Wikipedia: Gross_domestic_product:
 * The purchasing power parity method accounts for the relative effective domestic purchasing power of the average producer or consumer within an economy. This can be a better indicator of the living standards of less-developed countries because it compensates for the weakness of local currencies in world markets. (For example, India ranks 13th by GDP but 4th by PPP).

That's Wikipedia talking not just me. Also it's clear that by using the nominal GDP we would undervalue the actual output of economies whose currencies are artificially undervalued such as China or are simply experiencing depreciation such as Brazil's currency was in 2003.

As a compromise we could show both: Nominal and PPP. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦  Talk  05:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above, only that I would put the priorities in the other way - the ideal would be to have both but if we should pick just one, then definitely PPP for the reasons outlined above. JdeJ (talk) 11:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will change the text to GDP (PPP) then. T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 23:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with using PPP is that it doesn't reflect influence. If one country can use economic force to affect another country, then that is not reflected by PPP. Example. Germany and Bulgaria. Germany may look a bit richer with the PPP comparison, but if German companies want to buy out every major company in Bulgaria, then it is the fact that Bulgaria is a cheaper place to live works in favour of the Germans. Once Germany has bought all those Bulgarian companies, it is able to exert an influence over the economic policies of the Government. That relationship of economic power is expressed by the nominal GDP ratios rather then the PPP ratios. Also, as richer countries have higher levels of hidden benefits (e.g. the societal structures such as free education, healthcare, rubbish collection etc.), the less developed countries look to be richer because you can live there cheaper - but without the benefits! Be careful with PPP or some little pacific island will turn out to be very rich indeed, despite being populated by fisherman living a marginal existence! How about including life expectancy in the calculation? Surely important (it can be used as a surrogate for a large number of "social" benefits as well. If you must use PPP, would it not be better to use PPP x life expectancy? Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 01:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

OK that's the "theory" argument. I'm sure you will agree it is right. Now the practical argument. With the recent increases in prices for food and oil, the PPP figures are now hopeless. MY food and fuel prices haven't increased that much - Oil increased by around a factor of ten, but my fuel prices increased by only 50-60% (lots of tax on fuel in the UK!, the tax does not increase linearly with the fuel price). In the US, with less tax, relative fuel prices have increased much further. Similarly for other high and low fuel tax countries However, as I earn a reasonable wage (for the UK), fuel accounts for less than 10% of my income. Moving on to food, I have seen perhaps a 10% rise in food prices (I guess I eat a lot of processed food), but food for my family unit acounts for only 20% of my income. But for someone in a less wealthy (on nominal GDP terms) country, the recent increases in food and fuel prices (particularly the food prices!) will have struck much more severely. So, their PPP has received a much larger swing than mine. Of course the hypothetical pacific fisherman may well be in much the same position as before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 01:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No offense, but could you please refer to at least one text that favors Nominal GDP over PPP GDP for cross-border comparisons?
 * I referred to Wikipedia itself, two different articles in Wikipedia argue in favor of PPP when comparing nations, which is what we are doing. (read above)
 * Don't get offended by this, ok? It is just that we could go on and on arguing about it and arrive nowhere. So let's get the evidence on the table and weight it.
 * It might be useful to check Hal Varian, Mankiw or Fischer about this, may be even Krugman might have something on it.
 * I also would like to thank Tomeasy for his absolute impartiality over this, he changed the text even though only 2 editors answered the RfC.
 * ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦  Talk  07:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No offence taken. Wikipedia is supposed to be about what is sourced rather than what is clearly correct. I'm just discussing some points. Handy mentions a problem with both nomimal GDP and PPP, which is just that unpaid work tends not to be measured. If I grow food in my garden in my spare time, then I contribute nothing extra to GDP, but my buying power increases because I spend less on food. (I don't know what the food in the garden thing is like where you live, but my Russian relatives do it, having a plot 16m x 25m - they tend not to run out of potatoes!). I believe the example that Handy quotes is that in a country like Sweden, everyone pays a lot of tax, but old people are looked after by the state (who pay with that tax for the carer) and a lot of people work for the state as carers, while in some other countries, people tend to look after their own relatives. The relatives may well end up with the same state of care, but in Sweden it looks like work (rather than social obligation), therefore it is added to the GDP. The food prices thing affects different countries very diferently too. I read a piece a while back where India is affected much more by food prices rises that China (and by a considerable factor too!)- I presume that more Chinese are farmers, who, for obvious reasons, are less affected by food prices than city folk. Now I am more of a History buff than an economist,and the example of the town/country wealth swing going one way then the other then back again was clearly demonstrated in pre-industrialised Japan So, with the current volatility in food prices (the most basic of essentials), I am sure you will agree that the most recent PPP figures are at least as inaccurate as any nominal GDP figures. Practically, best to include both in some sort of table - a solution already proposed here (although they should both be included because of their variability, rather than any even-minded compromise).Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 04:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Quoting Wikipedia to support arguments on Wikipedia is frought with difficulties, and AFAIK is not recommended as it leads to compounding of errors.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 04:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC) What would be interesting would be to graphically plot nominal GDP and PPP against life expectancy, and see if any paaterns occur.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 05:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia is supposed to be about what is sourced rather than what is clearly correct."
 * Oh, no...I knew you would get offended, I don't like making Russian women angry. It is just that I've argued too much on Wikipedia already, so I now prefer to use proxies such as quotations to do the arguing.
 * As for quoting Wikipedia, IMO it speeds things up since you are now disgreeing with Wikipedia not just with a meaningless editor from Brazil.

Human Development Index
 * The Human Development Index uses GDP per capita in PPP terms on its calculation..

http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/faq/question,68,en.html


 * Now, the Human Development Index as we know is the best measure of the living standards of a nation. So having the HDI using GDP-PPP is a very strong argument in its favour.


 * Why would the UN use GDP-PPP and not GDP-nominal?
 * Wikipedia has the answer, just read above.
 * ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦  Talk  21:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Right then. Let's use HDI as the comparison, not PPP, which, as I am sure you will agree, from your link above, seems to tell somewhat less than half the story.
 * And by the way, I certainly do not think you, or anyone else, is "meaningless". You do, however, make certain assumptions when you suggest I am a Russian women. Due to the anonymity of Wikipedia, I could be Franz Schmidt, or Enrico Gomez, or Toshimi Nishio, or anyone else. Back to the PPP problem. I guess I can assume from your tag that you know something about economics. Therefore, you can answer me a question. Isn't part of the supposed superiority of PPP that nominal GDP varies by 20% or so per year due to exchange rates (which would affect economies with a lot of imported good in the short term, and economies with a lot of exports in the medium term), and that this variation is more than the other variables (i.e. implying a certain level of stability in essential commodity prices such as food)? Well that stability no longer seems to apply. Which rather undermines the index. As I said before similar problems with food prices (measured in rice vs. silver) occured in Japan. I checked the reference (Sansom), and it was in the period c.1695 to c.1725. Two of the major causes were speculation and a credit boom. It also coincided with the final end of rice as a unit of currency (food as currency would make an interesting index!), after 9 centuries or so where coins slowly gained the upper hand. Which highlights another issue. Wealth systems need a "constant" to measure against. A while back, lots of european countries used gold. Other peoples have used cowrie shells. The Japanese used to use rice. The nominal GDP uses dollars. Food is pehaps one of the most useful unit of currency, except for its storage. And then again, there is the political angle. Which major countries gain (i.e. feel "richer" from the use of PPP rather than nominal GDP, and how much funding do these countries give to the UN and the World Bank? So what do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 02:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Old saying "he who pays the piper calls the tune"Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 02:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Out of interest, the GDI reference actually backs up my point about GDP(PPP) not being a very good comparitor on its own !!Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 05:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Quote: "There are lies, damned lies and statistics" - Disraeli/Twain/ and othersMariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC) the European Union page shows EU GDP by PPP and nominal as well as by total and per capita in those categories. While not using that as a reference, it could perhaps be used as a syle template to point the way to the solution to the GDP PPP vs. nominal debate.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 05:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is this article so Vague?
I would not be able to make this article any more vague even if I tried very very hard. How can a number of countries be CIRCA 50? Its a joke right? It is either 50 or not:-) I looked at the chart and it lists 57 countries. Are you not counting the so called Transcontinental countries or "sociopolitical" ones? I do not believe that circa is the right thing to use.They are either there or they are not there - In or Out. What do you think about it? --Coniatis (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Look a little higher on this page, mate :) There's a large section called "Number of countries" where this is all covered. MorganaFiolett (talk) 07:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * well, yes I did see all that discussion and I am saying that circa is just not right. The discussion was talking even about de facto independent states but I do not believe that this is the right article for them to be included. If a person wants to know the number of countries in Europe what should he/she do? list sociopolitical ones? Cyprus is even member of the EU.--Coniatis (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, basically (bearing in mind I was uninvolved in the discussion apart from triggering it) what you've possibly missed is that the article has to be vague because there isn't a definite answer. If there isn't a definite answer, we can't make one up. As for Cyprus, well, the whole point of using "circa" was so that we're not specifically including or excluding any country which is disputed. If a person wants to know the number of countries in Europe (as I did, which is what brought me here in the first place) and they see the Circa at the top of the article.... then they realise that it's just not that defined. Then, hopefully, they read on in the article and see exactly why it is not that defined. MorganaFiolett (talk) 08:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And for how long is that going to be disputed ? On all those discussions when I took a look, most people that have some problems want something to be included, rather than excluded (most of the time). why is not the same thing disputed on other articles such as Asia? if Cyprus is disputed here then how can Asian page display it like it is not? IF You or those "important" editors dont want to include something then say so.Was there someone who said that cyprus should Not be there? NO. I dont think so.--Coniatis (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I mentioned Cyprus only because you did. I don't know why you brought it up. There are no "important" editors on Wikipedia, everybody is equal. The point is, there ARE disputes over a number of countries as to whether or not they should be included in the count. If we (as in the generic Wikipedia we) were to put an exact figure, then whatever exact figure we choose, we are taking a side, which is not a WP:NPOV. Therefore, the decision was made by a number of editors on this page to use a "circa" figure which, I stress again, does not specifically include or exclude ANY particular country. From what I can tell of the situation, and from what I know of human nature, the actual number of countries in Europe is likely to be disputed for a very long time, probably forever for all I know, and as long as that dispute is ongoing the only neutral choices available to Wikipedia are, really, to use the circa figure or to not use any figure at all. I think it would be more baffling if there was no figure at all, so I support the use of a "circa" figure. Anyway, this seems to be a circular argument, so I'm not intending to make any further response. MorganaFiolett (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This whole dispute thing is exaggerated.There is not a single editor out there who would DEMAND cyprus to be removed if it was on the list(at least not that I saw someone on the talk page or anywhere else complaining).I am mentioning cyprus because in its case my arguments are stronger as it is not just the member of Council of Europe but the EU as well.Only thing I am hearing is that people complain about certain countries Not being included. I never heard anyone asking any particular country to be Exluded(most of the time). That is my whole point that you dont seem to understand. Can you NAME an editor who will Demand those sociopolitical countries to be Excluded if they Were on the list? Name them so that I can talk to them maybe we will understand the situation better. Are you against them being included? if yes, Tell us why? is that Tomeasy (the one who came up with circa solution) against it? then why wont he tell us why? Please when we talk about some so called "DISPUTE" lets name Particular names so that we know who is in dispute with who. I don't want to be in dispute with people who I don't even know exist and don't know what they want. Are You in dispute with me? then say so. I just do not understand who is in dispute with whom. I need the names thats it--Coniatis (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this was nothing else than another try to disrupt the discussions on this talk page. The culprit was once again the indefinitely blocked Polscience, this time as Coniatis. I did not dare to delete the whole section, since it also contains a lot of good faith energy invested by another user. T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 07:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Npov - Territories and regions
This seems to have been rumbling on for several months now. I can't see any significant problems myself and proposal to have both UN and US columns in the table seems unreasonable Any proposals for resolving? Tom (talk) 11:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * yes i would like to see a columm for the cia world factbook european region along side the the u.n region and than we can remove the temp if nobody else has a problem --Wikiscribe (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Do I understand right? We would make one table, listing once alphabetically all the countries, and give them two more columns to name their regional group according to UN and CIA? If the layout turns out to be O, i.e., the table does not get too wide, I welcome the idea. After all, I would be glad to remove the POV tag from the list. T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 17:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

well i think it would be better to make a totaly seperate table it could be placed  right under the u.n's classification being the u.n was up first--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And this second table would contain nothing else than the CIA regional group? Sorry that I still don't get your idea. T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 17:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

there is one table in the article which states the united nations opinion of the regions of europe all im saying is add a table with another source with a differeing opinion of regions of europe such as a reliable source such as the cia world factbook which differs with the u.n with regards to regions of europe and myself happen to agree more with the cia world factbook than with the backwards organization such as the united nations,for example go to the Western Europe article and you will see what i mean--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I know there are arguable points in the UN definitions, mostly for historical reasons, and therefore I support the idea of incorporating another POV. However, we should see that this does not result in a huge amount of additionally occupied space.
 * The article currently contains one large table, a list of countries displaying various data about the countries. I am strictly against doubling all this information. I guess you also did not mean so. The countries are currently grouped regionally and within the regions alphabetically. If we were to add the CIA grouping information, the current format wouldn't work anymore, because the groupings are different. So, you propose a second table. Does this table then specify merely the CIA grouping? I am afraid this is again not what you mean. If so, perhaps you can put your idea in (my or any other) sandbox.
 * My idea would be to give up the regional grouping as the top-level criterion for the sequence of the countries and list them purely alphabetically. The regional grouping can then be specified in extra columns or even better, as it is done in the article Western Europe, by means of color maps, one for UN and one for CIA, at least. T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 19:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

yes if we could just elimnate regional grouping period as opposed to a total redue of the section and just group them acording to alphabetical order that would work for me--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In the meantime we have redesigned the table here, the sandbox version. Everyone is invited to further work and to comment on this proposal. From my point of view the key improvements are:
 * The whole table has one alphabetical order, which makes it much easier to find a specific country.
 * The UN regional POV is not given preference any more. It is now equally reported to the CIA grouping and possibly other groupings in the future.
 * However, I see room for improvement with respect to:
 * The regional grouping information can be much better convey regionally by means of a map. We wouldn't need the extra columns in this case. In the sandbox you will also find proposals for these maps. The UN map is complete.
 * Unfortunately, there is yet no map available that visualizes the CIA grouping.
 * Who can help with the map issue? If I had an SVG file of the map, I could edit it. Please, add your opinions. T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 16:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you think, shall I replace the article version by my sandbox version and we try to resolve the remaining issues will it is live? T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 16:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

yeah lets give it a go --Wikiscribe (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I will take the responsibility of making CIA map for this section if someone is not already working on it.--Geographyfanatic (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Great map! It conveys the information of CIA groupings in a visual way using the same colors as the map with the UN groupings. This is especially helpful when comparing the differences between the groupings.
 * With all the information about the groupings now properly contained in the two maps, I would like to propose the deletion of the two respective columns in the table. T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 23:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

i would be for removing the two columms if the un map and the cia one had maps keys--Wikiscribe (talk) 14:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Geographyfanatic has done this. You can see the result on my talk page. The problem with this is – and that's why we decided to post the map without legend for a first trial – that the legend takes up a lot of space. The CIA grouping is quite specific and therefore has a lot of different names and colors. The UN map that was on Wikipedia before we started this did not have a legend anyways.
 * IMHO, the legend is not really required. The only information that we would be missing to convey is to how is that regional group there in south east of the continent called?. The reader would have to look elsewhere to find out it is called Southeastern Europe by the CIA. My point is, I think it is of lesser importance to the reader, which term is now exactly applied to a region. However, I am also not 100% happy with leaving it out, just I that I prefer it over the two alternatives that I am currently imagining (2 more table columns or huge legends cluttering the maps). T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 15:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am confident that user:Geographyfanatic has solved this problem to everyone's satisfaction, by adding the legend to the image description that becomes visible upon clicking the image. BTW, this is like it was for the UN regional map before. T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 09:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Czech Republic - Eastern Europe
Why is Czech Republic listed as Eastern European country? Is it just because it was part of the "eastern block"(communist)? --Geographyfanatic (talk) 04:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's clearly stated that the list uses the United Nations geoscheme for Europe, so you'd have to ask the UN rather than the Wikipedia community. Taking a quick glance at that list however, it does seem that it's made up of all the "eastern block" countries north of the Balkans (and even including Bulgaria, but excluding East Germany, of course). The UN might be adviced to catch up with history and create a "Central Europe" subregion, but they haven't. – Jao (talk) 11:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are right.I think Poland for example, and the surrounding countries would really go in Central Europe.--Geographyfanatic (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

the cia world fact book has the czech republic in central europe hopefully soon we will have the new table up with both cia world factbook and the u.n regions of europe i do agree with you that it is in central europe and not eastern europe--Wikiscribe (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Population of Europe
The numbers at the end of the chart and in the beginning of the page do not match. I also thought that it was somewhere around 800 million but now I see its around 700 million. council of Europe claims to represent 800 million people(as you can see at the top of their page.) Are they exaggerating to be be taken more seriously or what ? It also excludes Belarus which is not a member. So if even without Belarus its around 800 million dont you think the gap is too big? I dont want to recount and add all those populations in the chart as it will take a great amount of time. What do you think about it? --Geographyfanatic (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I did the summation. With a spreadsheet thats not even too much work. The result is 839,713,881!
 * Ok, so much about the maths. We declare in the footnote for the total amount of the table that it refers to the European part only, which I find reasonable. This, however, would strip off about 60M Turks, 40M Russians, and 15M Kazakhstanis that are included in the above summation. Furthermore, Kosovaris are counted double in this list and the inclusion of Georgians, Armenians, and Azeris is anyway a matter of choice. I hope this statement does not call for an opening of the notorious question as to where Europe begins and ends.
 * Conclusion: The precise statement of this number is at least as difficult as stating a precise number for the counties. However, I would welcome consistency through the article, i.e., mentioning the same number at different instances and perhaps also that it is kinda vague.
 * Proposition, take the current value of 712,000,000 from the info box also for the table. Therefore, strip the table value off its nonsensical digits that pretend a non-existing precision. Replace 800M in the prose by 712M and combine it with the already existing explanation for the ca. 50 countries. T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 17:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that 712 million does not include Russian 40 million (because of being in Asia) and most of Turkey, and Georgia, armenia Azerbaijan completely ? So do you want me to put 712 million at the end of the chart and + explanation of the fact that several countries are not included?


 * P.S I did not know Kosovo was included separately.--Geographyfanatic (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Would not it be better if we included the entire population just like in the case of individual transcontinental countries, as counting it part by part is impossible? for example you said 40 million Russians - how do we know that they are 40 and not 50 or 45 million in the Asian part. I would go with entire population or I would at least list only partial populations for individual countries, if known. --Geographyfanatic (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it is a bad idea to take the complete populations of all listed countries, as for example in the case of Russia. The reader taking a look on the infobox, or the last row of the table is looking for the population of Europe and they will understand the figure as such. That is the population of the dark green area that they will see in the same infobox. Obviously, this comes along with a number of problems. I hope you are aware of the earlier discussion on the number of countries. Otherwise, it might help if you read this to get a grip on the complexity of this issue.
 * Anyway, I think we should have one number throughout. Is at least this not contended? T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 17:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * OK.I will make it 712 million in both places. I will just add a note that will explain why is it that way and what countries are excluded completely or partially. But sadly I will not be able to provide specific numbers for Turkey, Russia etc. If you will find any references let me know.--Geographyfanatic (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have found a source from the UN, also in the article, that says 731M. i think we should take this number instead of 712M, so that we can use a reference. However, I still advocate the explanatory footnote that you have added – only I am going to rephrase them slightly in a minute. Let me know what you think! T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 18:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Images and Maps
Hello. I helped User:Hemlock Martinis modify the history section Europe in December 2007. One thing that happened is that we started adding images. The images do not necessarily have to be of maps. I am extremely happy to see the image of Stonehenge added to the first section: it looks great. The geography section originally had a photo gallery of various geographical features from around Europe, which I quite liked, but in the end was removed. I added the relief map. It would be nice to find an image or map illustrating the boundaries of Europe - I didn't particularly like what I put there. The World War I map that HM originally included can be replaced by a map or any other relevant image. Perhaps not another map, since there might be too many maps on this page already! Mathsci (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Linked map
This map has been in the displayed way for a very long time on the top of the article. User: Ijanderson977 has worked hard on it to make the links be in the correct place. Unfortunately, it had to be enlarged to achieve this. The larger map does not integrate nicely into the article at its current position. It covers the table of contents. I guess this was the reason for user: atoric to revert the corrected map and to reinstall the buggy version shown above. I reverted Atoric for that I believe this version, with the links in complete arbitrary place, is unacceptable. I would appreciate anyone's ideas on how to go about this map. Thanks for contributing! T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 11:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you want a linking map?
 * Which size should it be?
 * Where should it be placed?
 * How can the issue with the table of contents be technically solved?


 * Yes,I do believe that the new map gives a different "look" and "shape" to the article.However I also believe that it is very convenient for people to easily redirect to country of their interest and at the same time see the location. I think smaller map kind of fitted the article better but I also believe that curtailing it on the expense of some states (as the previous map did) seems to violate WP:NPOV policy.

I am really not sure about what to do. I think it should be where it is, how it is, and people will get used to it. Also the fact that Atoric reverted to the previous version of map does not necessarily mean that it was because of its Size, unless he had explicitly stated.

I am sorry ,I had to place this comment little bit lower for it to be visible to the reader--Carbott (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe the map is good. It includes all of Europe. The map fills up a large spot on the page, because there was a big gap there, so it seemed best to fill it in. Also because it is bigger, its easier to see and chose which country you want to look at. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't you worry that the table of contents is hidden by the current map? T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 22:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hidden? I do not know what exactly you mean but I believe it looks fine just the way it is.If you are saying that map will get more attention than the table content, then I guess its about what people are interested in, is it necessary for them to stare at the table first? I believe there was actually a very serious gap that needed to be filled and be completed.Did Atoric state that he/she has something against this map? because as I remember his edit was one of the reasons you opened a new thread. Maybe he should talk to us about the specifics?--Carbott (talk) 02:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Its not hidden. I can see it perfectly. Maybe you shouldn't use shitty internet explorer. Use Firefox or Netscape, this will make life easier for you. Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Mind your words! FYI, I am using Firefox. Making wrong and condescending assumptions in an over-confident way as you just did is not only bad manner but also ignorant. You look less intelligent then you probably are. Btw, wikipedia targets IE users as well and you are wrong when you think that they need your patronizing. T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 14:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Then why can't you see see the contents menu? I don't know what you are on about? Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I can see the list of contents. However, when I reduce the width of my browser window to less than 1200px, which many people have to live with, then the image moves over the list. What happens in your case? Is the lower rim of the image always above the upper rim of the list? I think that's how it should be. According to what you wrote before (before your infamous post I mean), this is not the case, since you reported how nicely the map fills a huge white space. So, I guess also with your configurations the map is initially to the right of the map. So, what happens when you reduce the width of your browser window? T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 13:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes I see, it does the same thing with me but the problem is that it does the same thing with many other parts of the article. We are not going to erase everything from there just to make sure we can view it in small window are we?--Carbott (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Solutions other than erasing the table might be possible. T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 22:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

For your information: User: Carbott has been identified of another soc puppet of user: Polscience alias user: Geographyfanatic. T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 23:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Faulty language map
Some of the many errors with the map On a more general level, it is very problematic that the map seems to lack any principle. What time period is is supposed to show? In Eastern Europe, it is very up-to-date and show the situation as it is today. In Western Europe, it is very outdated and shows the sitation between 1000 years ago (Breton) to 100-150 years ago (Irish, Scottish Gaelic, German and Dutch in France) coupled with some inventions that never existed (Catalan, German in Italy). Before we use this map, these issues need to be addressed. JdeJ (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Breton All of Brittany is marked at Breton speaking, that has not been the case for about 1000 years. Traditionally, Brittany was divided into one half speaking Breton one half speaking Gallo, a Romance language/French dialect. Today, French is the most spoken lanugage even in the Western half that used to be Breton-speaking but this map extends Breton not only to all areas of that half but even to the half that always was Gallo-speaking.
 * Irish To see where Irish really is spoken, have a look at this article: Gaeltacht. Many of the areas now colored as Irish-speaking are more English in language than London and haven't had any Irish-speaking communities for more than 100 years.
 * Catalan Whereas the maps for Irish and Breton reflect what was the case between 200 and 1000 years ago, Catalan is one step worse as it has been extended into large areas where it was never spoken. That part of map looks particularly silly.
 * Italy The German speaking has been doubled, looks like the creator seems to think that all of the area Austria ceeded to Italy in 1919 is German-speaking. That's not the case, it's only the Northern half.


 * Thank you JdeJ for this detailed analysis. I think, all you've said is basically true. I could make some precisions with respect to point 3 and 4 of your list, but that would not change the main objection that the map is just not good enough. So, I spare my comments and apologize that I did not look as closely at this map as you did when I posted it in the first place.
 * I think in this article the map should reflect the current situation. I think a map greatly helps to understand the prose, which otherwise requires a lot of geographical knowledge. So, let's try to replace this map with something less faulty. What do you think about this map Image:Simplified_Languages_of_Europe_map.svg? It already states in its name that it is simplified. Catalan is still merged with Valencian and the Irish colors are spread wider than in the article that you've linked, but I think that with respect to your objections it is a better choice. What do you think? Perhaps you have another map available? T<font color="#009ef2">om<font color="#6bd5f5">ea s y talk 09:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments and the constructive suggestion. The map you propose, in my opinion, is better. The Swedish language area in the South of Finland is missing and the spread of Irish is still a bit faulty but all in all I think it's a better option. In addition to that, it is probably easier for a non-linguist to grasp, while a linguist will know where to look for more detailed information. JdeJ (talk) 09:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)