Talk:Europe/Archive 7

Istanbul - europe's largest city?
to follow the logic of various arguements about the trans-continental status of various countries, how do we measure Istanbul? Is the european part bigger than moscow or london?Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Just so you know, that was added there by indef blocked User:Izmir lee (as his sockpuppet Aegean Boy). He was blocked for consistent edit-warring for relentlessly pushing the POV that "Turkey is European and ONLY European".  As for Istanbul, I am split on the issue, however, I do get the impression that Moscow is larger and is therefore Europe's largest city, with Istanbul possibly 2nd, 3rd, or 4th (depending on the size of Paris and London and whether we include only the strictly European part or the whole thing.  --Tsourkpk (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it starts to get into the issue of what is a city's size. How far out can suburbs extend and still be part of the same city? In the US, many cities have suburbs that are themselves officially cities, although in some other countries suburbs of that size and status would be small towns. So before, say, London and Moscow can be compared, the "definition" of city must first be made. In London, with which I am the most familiar, it could be said to be the area with London as the postal designation, or the area inside the M25 periphery motorway. Or it could be said to be the areas that are part of the political London. Two examples are: 1) Enfield "in" North London. It is inside the M25 periphery motorway, and is politically a London district (borough), part of the old GLC, now GLA, but its postal address is Enfield, Middlesex - with no mention of London at all. and 2) Watford - a geographically similar distance to London, similarly inside the M25, but not politically or postally part of London. Watford actually has better transport links (road, metro, train) to central London than Enfield does! Similarly, of London's five airports (Heathrow, Gatwick, City, Stanstead, and Luton, only 1 is in the centre of London (City), and only one more is inside the peripheral motorway (Heathrow). I am sure a similar problem of definition applies to many cities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 04:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Trying to pin down a city's size is another intractable problem. It's essentially trying to draw a discrete boundary through a continuum.  There are several things we can try.  One is city limits, metro area, or larger urban zone.  There are several articles that try to deal with this:


 * 1) Larger Urban Zone
 * 2) Largest cities of the European Union by population within city limits
 * 3) Largest European cities and metropolitan areas
 * 4) Largest urban areas of the European Union


 * My own personal feeling is to go with urban agglomeration or LUZ. From most of what I've seen in wikipedia and elsewhere, Moscow seems consistently to be ranked #1. --Tsourkpk (talk) 05:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Problem with using continous urban development is that London has a politically created artificial break around it "the Green Belt", which not all other cities share. the economic activity of london is therefore much more dependent on citizens living just outside that artificial barrier than in a similar city without that barrier.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 06:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point, but I don't know what to tell you. Different cities use different definitions.  Like I said, this is a largely intractable problem.  Should we use metro area instead?  --Tsourkpk (talk) 06:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Even using some of the suggested link above give a variation of c. 4 million people in the population of london. Not exactly a very precise comparison!Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 06:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Take the average of a bunch of different estimates then? --Tsourkpk (talk) 06:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Moscow and London are both very big and very european. Hard to measure london's population - the UK doesn't have an official ID/citizenship register, and the voter's list doesn't include foreigners (or people under 16/17) and the last census was 7 years ago, and that doesn't include illegal immigrants, and people who are on the margins of sociey (through choice or circumstance). A good example is Slough where the council said they had many times more Polish migrants in their town than the official total (the council said their figure was based on people accessing services such as education etc.)

the UK does not, oddly perhaps, keep a list of who has left the country, so even if evryone was documented entering (and they are not) it would be difficult to know how many returned overseas, and how many stayed on in an unofficial capacity. As a major cosmopolitan city, and a good source of employment, a lot of migrants to the country live in and around London. So you see the problem. So it is hard to say how big london is, let alone compare it with moscow, which no doubt has some similar and some differeing problems when trying to define its size. The Slough page has a link on it to a TV documentary describing the problems with UK popultaion estimates. And every time a minister makes a statement in the Parliament here about population, immigration, etc., it seems that statement has to be updated to allow for something not counted, or the vagaries of the estimates. Not very well organised for a so-called "developed" country, is it! Perhaps best to include several cities as the largest (one source above list Istanbul, if the asian bit counts) and put in copious footnotes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 06:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I would try to look at as many lists as possible and take the average. That would minimize error.  --Tsourkpk (talk) 06:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Remember that Green belt round London. And the point about the population stats is they are all guesses based on partial data - even the official one from the UK. The register of births, which should contain everyone born in the UK, is not systematically cross referenced to the register of deaths. This has been a method of getting false passports for years. It has been tightened up, but it is neither completely, or systematically checked. The number of illegral immigrants in the UK has been estimated to be 500,000, but that figure could be out by a good few hundred thousand either way, and that is just the official estimates. No-one knows (officially) how many new-EU citizens (e.g. Poles, Czechs, etc) live and work in London - that's an official estimate as well - the UK counted many of them on the way in, but has no estimate for how many subsequently left the country. And there were certainly massive population flows post EU enlargement. Britain, after all, had one of the healthiest economies in the EU, so it is only natural that it would attract a large number of migrants. I suggest you watch that documentary to get a feel of the problem! On the subject of city definition, there seems to be little or no agreement about what popultion density a city should have. One table shows Moscow larger than london, but at a lower population density. Perhaps city size should be adjusted for popultion density to reduce the differences in what counts as a suburb.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Isn't this a non-issue? I've never seen any table in which MOscow isn't the largest European city and Istanbul the second. JdeJ (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * well, one of the four linked suggested above as lists of city sizes lists Istanbul. The problem I have with London is that the figures seem to have wildly different bases for compilation - a variation of 4 million in a figure only 2 to 3 times that suggests VERY different methodologies, at best.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) Ah, the Polish plumber problem. Don't Sweden and the UK also have slightly different laws, which make them more attractive as workplaces to new-EU citizens? I would love to find a Polish plumber here in France. That would solve the far more taxing French plumber problem. :-)Mathsci (talk) 07:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I had by bathroom fixed by a Lithuanian and a Russian ;) Did a good job too!Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Largest city means the most populous city. It is not about its size or area. "Istanbul is Europe's most populous city (the world's 3rd largest city proper and 21st largest urban area) and Turkey's cultural and financial center..." This is from Wikipedia's Istanbul article. According to Largest European cities and metropolitan areas, Istanbul ranks 1st in " Population of municipality " but Moscow ranks 1st in " Population of metropolitan area ". If we put them in order by their Population of municipality, Istanbul must be the most populous city but by their Population of metropolitan area, Moscow must be the largest city, Istanbul is the 2nd, ... --85.100.158.147 (talk) 08:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The question about what defines a city is part of the problem. Some editors clearly believe one thing, and some another. Has modern transport redefined the meaning of city? 200 years ago, a city was unlikely to be more than, say, 10 or 15 miles across (my opinion). Do suburbs count as a city? Is Istanbul really two cities, next to each other? Or what? Budapest is two cities, so what about Istanbul?Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 10:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Back to how the measurement is made. This organisation has tried to remove the bias from the politically created gap (greenbelt) at the edge of London. they have a figure of 13,945,000 for London in 2001! That is already in front of Istanbul (add on population growth in the last 7 years, and suddenly you have a figure similar or greater than Moscow!). On another track, the figures quoted on Wikipedia for Metro area size are from "World Gazeteer". Anyone know what this is? Google didn't come up with much. The World Gazeteer website didn't seem to say anything about ownership (certainly not that I found - maybe i'm just daft!). So who produces it? A government? a University? an organisation/NGO? an Individual with a burning desire and a bit of time? What is the quality of their data? Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 10:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I found (with deeper digging) something more about the World Gazeteer site. Well, this link [2] suggests that it is doesn't really come up to scratch a source quality - it does not appear to be peer-reviewed, or by a known reputable organisation. Its data appears to be second and third hard, including user feedback.

That's what I think. If my doubts are confirmed, then the Metro area listing for size is, at best, unreliable. So it would appear to contribute nothing to the biggest city (Moscow/Istanbul/London/Other) debate What does everyone else think —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 10:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

As a possible way forward, perhaps I can repeat my previous comment: ''Perhaps best to include several cities as the largest (one source above list Istanbul, if the asian bit counts) and put in copious footnotes! ''Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Hey, Hey. Here is a list that says London is bigger than Moscow or Istanbul. Told you so.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 23:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, "hey, hey, hey" is that site some sort of official document that mandates us to model the entire list over it? Wikipedia should not be merely a copy of something.--Satt 2 (talk) 23:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess you should read the stuff above. The view of most sources is that it is Moscow, Istanbul, London, with one site having Istanbul, Moscow, London, and one site having London, Moscow, Istanbul. But there is no common definition of what a city is. One site lists "core city" and suburbs in different columns - then London only get 2 million. So there you are, depending on definition London is c.2 million to c.14 million in size. So there is no "right" figure (quite apart from the population migration point that I raised earlier. PLUS the Wikipedia list is based on a questionable source (see notes above). Which is why, oddly enough, I have already suggested a list with footnotes to accomodate the different sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 09:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Encarta" :

Kazakhstan is listed in Europe and Asia?
I was just browsing around and noticed that Kazakhstan is listed in Europe and Asia pages. I understand that Kazakhstan is on both Continents, but why was it chosen to be this way and by who, and when? Can someone elaborate on this. --Japreja (talk) 03:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"Why was it chosen to be this way"? Well, I guess because the country is on both continents, as you have already figured. Who implemented this when? I can't answer you, but you can look that up yourself using the article history. Good luck! T om ea s y T C 09:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

High res map for prints
The current map of Europe is rather annoying. The problem with it is that you can not print it because the links aren't saved. It would be cool if there was a High-Res map of Europe that allowed you to print stuff from it. Not sure how to create a new topic though. It would be cool if somebody could make another high res map that you could print. 161.97.199.36 (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope you like the header I invented, because I am not 100% sure I understand what you want. T om ea s y T C 07:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo?
Kosovo is NOT a state. it is an autonomous region of Serbia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.147.174 (talk) 14:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The majority of Europe disagrees with you Ijanderson (talk) 13:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the majority of the world agrees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.168.205 (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Also the UN and the internacional laws agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.239.217.32 (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Then put Abkhazia and S.O., in the meantime, I'm putting a POV tag -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 13:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you put the tag on the right section? You put it on the Definition section, while apparently you are disputing the neutrality of the Political geography here. T om ea s y T C 17:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's agree that this is a delicate question and it need thorough attention to solve it. Actually, it is part of the most ardently discussed topics on wikipedia: how do we appreciate independence of countries when disputed. Most apparent are locator maps and topical lists as the one here. Those of you who are interested to design a general guideline for these cases without having recent instances in mind (or on agenda) should feel invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. There and here we should try to come up with an objective rule that then defines naturally which countries fall into the list and which ones do not. Let's leave behind, for the time being, the concrete countries and discuss on the basis of objective criteria.

I will give it a first shot; here's my proposition: Include all countries on the list that are (i) de facto sovereign and (ii) recognized by at least one universally recognized state. T om ea s y T C 17:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Counter-proposal: Include all countries on the list that are (I) de facto sovereign and (II) recognized by at least more than one universally recognized state.--MaGioZal (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds fine to me. In the case at hand it would not make a difference anyway. Can you explain why a minimum of two makes sense to you, while one is not enough? To me, this appears to be the weak point in your proposal. People will start asking why two? It seems arbitrary. T om ea s y T C 19:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tom's proposal, it sounds fair. De facto situation is important. I would opt to show even North Cyprus. -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 11:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I did not think of N. Cyprus at all, but you are right it just follows from my proposition. Let's leave the exapmles out for the time being and see how we can find a truly NPOV ruling.
 * The reason I formulated (ii) along 1 recognized country is that this constitutes sufficiently the situation where different points of view exist. In this situation, I propose that our list should reflect both points of view, i.e., not decide to overrule one of the two. In contrast to this, Magiozal's proposal seems arbitrary to me: why 2, why not 3 or 4...? With respect to my proposal, the number 1 is not arbitrary. I hope this has been made clear.
 * Still, very different proposals might be possible... T om ea s y T C 12:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The question is do you recognize only UN-recognized states, or any "state" that has de facto control over its own territory, with its own legislature etc. ? Kosovo relaly is not more a state than Abkhazia or South Ossetia or North Cyprus or Nagorno-Karabakh. Then we can get into issues like Transnistria, or Mount Athos. It would be best if only states that are internationally-recognized UN members be included. Otherwise this discussion will still be going on ages from now, and may very well turn nasty. 41.245.165.40 (talk) 08:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * UN membership is also just one point of view. A look at the history of this organization reveals that very often well-established states were not members, like e.g. Switzerland, and still the Vatican is not a member. Should the latter be removed from our list? It enjoys universal recognition, so I would say include. I hope you agree. With respect to your examples my proposal is quite clear: Mt. Athos, Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabagh are not recognized by any universally recognized state - hence should be excluded. I understand you would like to do so as well. You claim Kosovo is no different than Abkhazia. My proposal would include both. So, I wonder what's your problem with my proposal and where are the advantages of relating everything to a single organization and its POV, the UN? T om ea s y T C 09:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that only UN members should be included in order to avoid any unnecessary POV disputes. --ish_warsaw (talk) 22:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * But this article is not about the United Nations — it’s about Europe. And the fact is that the absolute majority of the independent countries (which also holds the majority of the population) of all Europe recognize Kosovo as an independent nation and have (or intend to have) ties with it — a situation very different from Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh and Northern Cyprus.


 * And about UN admission, let’s remember that until 2005 Switzerland was not an UN member — but no one has said that Switzerland was not a nation until 2005.--MaGioZal (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

How can you state that the majority of the European population recognizes Kosovo? Also, Switzerland was recognized by its previous ruler(Austria) when it declared independence. That is why Crotia and Slovenia are states, because the previous regime recognized them. Under UN (them again) law all states' territorial boundaries as of the formation of the UN are indivisible, unless the state themselves recognizes the new boundaries. It doesn't matter who recognizes Kosovo, unless Belgrade recognizes an independent nation called "Kosovo", it is part of Serbia. Period. Likewise, using the "this is about Europe" argument falls flat. Israel is in the Middle East, but the absolute majority of Middle Eastern governments and people do no recognize it. So should we remove that from that section. The facts are these:

1)Under UN law, Kosovo is part of Serbia.

2)The overwhelming majority of governments of universally recognized sovereign states do not recognize Kosovo as a state, but as part of Serbia.

3)You can not possibly claim to know what the majority population of Europe feels or thinks.

4)Unless Serbia recognized Kosovo as an independent state, Kosovo's "independence" is in vi9olation of just about every international law and agreement.

5)Including Kosovo in a list of European countries is factually inaccurate.

41.245.139.25 (talk) 12:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * How can you state that the majority of the European population recognizes Kosovo? Also, Switzerland was recognized by its previous ruler(Austria) when it declared independence. That is why Crotia and Slovenia are states, because the previous regime recognized them. Under UN (them again) law all states' territorial boundaries as of the formation of the UN are indivisible, unless the state themselves recognizes the new boundaries. It doesn't matter who recognizes Kosovo, unless Belgrade recognizes an independent nation called "Kosovo", it is part of Serbia. Period.


 * To say that Kosovo will only be a country when and if only Belgrade government Serbia recognizes it (even if Kosovo would become member of UN) it’s an absolutely Serb nationalist POV — otherwise, the rule could be applied to Israel, and it would disappear from all the world maps and be substituted by “(occupied) Palestine”. Or, in the case of Falklands as “(occupied) Malvinas”. Or, in the 70’s, Bangladesh as “(occuped) East Pakistan”, and so on.


 * And to say Switzerland was recognized as a country just because Austria acknowledged its independence is not true, since Austria as a country just came into existence many years after Switzerland — which was a former part of the old Holy Roman Empire (which included the current territories of Germany, Czech Republic, Austria and Slovenia), not Austria — became independent.--201.52.216.113 (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, as you obviously know, but are likely just being trollish now, the Vienna regime which had had control of Switzerland recognized it as a state, and thus Switzerland became an official country. The Vienna state was obviously not the exact same thing as the modern state of Austria, but that is irrelevant. Likewise I used the Israel example and now you are trying to use it to state your rather feeble point? All you have done so far is make outrageous claims. I have stated my point(which various other people here agree with, read discussion history) that an exact specification needs to be made when listing countries as to what constitutes a country. The proposed designation is a UN member state. While that is not perfect it does remove back-and-forth edit warring and POVing. Likewise at least a majority recognition could be used instead. Kosovo is not a UN member state, and the overwhelming majority of universally-recognized states do not recognize any country called the "republic of Kosovo". Your reason for its inclusion seems to be "because I say so". If that is the case then why not also include North Cyprus, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabakh, Chechneya? Apart from bluster, could you set out what guidelines you would propose for what should be included, what you feel the valid criteria should be etc? And please do not just cut-and-paste or echo back what I have just said. 41.245.155.32 (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your (IP 41...) approach of seeking a clear cut solution that will apply for all cases without looking at the specific countries involved. I am convinced that Wikipedia needs a clear guideline for this, because many talk pages have been filled with these disputes and will be filled in the future, if we cannot come up with a logical guideline that can be respected by everyone. Even though, I do not agree with the model you have in mind, i.e., the parent country needs to recognize, I think your way of approaching this case can be helpful in building a strong consensus. There is a thread on the Wikiproject Countries that deals with this question. Perhaps, you would like to create an account and join us there. Creating an account takes less time than you took for writing your above comment and you will really not be spamed or anything. So, do not waste time and join the project.  T om ea s y T C 18:01, 18 October 2008 (U

Kosovo is not a member of international organizations like the UN, IMF, the World Bank, the Olympic organization, FIFA, I mean you name it. It is not a member of the UN not because like Switzerland they choose not to be because of their neutrality but because they do not have sufficient support to become a member. A new resolution of the UN Security Council is needed to grant independence to Kosovo. Until then it is formally according to resolution 1244 of the UN Security Council a part of Serbia. Tomeasy, your suggestion of: Include all countries on the list that are (i) de facto sovereign and (ii) recognized by at least one universally recognized state. is not adequate. For example, Bosnia is not de facto sovereign because the final decision on issues there is made by the High Representative and EU special representative. Northern Cyprus is de facto more sovereign than Bosnia but does that mean that Bosnia should be removed from the map because it does not fit one of the two criteria? Kosovo is also under similar international authority and furthermore its political independence has not been formalized within any international organizations. If you claim that this is a European issue and that most EU countries have recognized Kosovo you are right but on the other hand Kosovo is neither a member of the Council of Europe nor of the OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe). Why is that do you think? You can not form a set of criteria for determining what a country is because each individual case is different. In the case of Kosovo I propose that it be drawn into the map once the UN Security Council adopts a new resolution stating its independence. Don't worry, you probably won't have to wait more than two years anyway, but putting it on the map now makes Wikipedia a bit superficial. TripioTripio (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please sign your comments with ~ . Are you IP 41... ?
 * IMO, Bosnia is sovereign. You are of course right that the term sovereign might be contentious. Many people claimed that West Germany was not sovereign until 1990. OK, I see the point, but that is not what I mean.
 * International organizations like FIFA etc. are better left out of this completely. How would you ever come to a stable solution, if you took countless organizations into account? Where would you start and where would you stop?
 * I never claimed it to be a European issue. Just in contrast, my position is not to look at who are the supporters and who are the opponents of a declared independence. I would like to see a guideline being established that works without.
 * You can not form a set of criteria for determining what a country is because each individual case is different. I do not share your fatalism. If you do not want to work on this, I can't help it, but it would certainly be worth the effort. Your case to case proposition endorses the engagement of stupid POV fighters, placeing stupid arguments, never listing to their opponents. I am looking for an academic discussion on this, with a simple clear cut guideline. I have seen that anything else is a waste of energy. T om ea s y T C 10:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

"I am looking for an academic discussion on this, with a simple clear cut guideline." The academic problem is that you have two opposing and at times contradicting concepts of international law (which is a living organism that is not perfect)which are the guarantee of sovereignty and territorial integrity of countries (in this case Serbia's argument), and the rights of people to self-determination (Kosovo Albanians argument). The problem in the case of Kosovo is that regardless if it goes one way or the other one of the two principles will be violated and one side will be damaged. If there are no "simple clear cut" guidelines for determining the sovereignty of a territory in international politics, how can you expect them to be defined on Wikipedia? The push to recognize Kosovo with a UN Security Council resolution is not my idea. It is the preferred mechanism of countries that already have recognized the independence of Kosovo. The International Court of Justice is to determine the legality of the unilateral declaration of independence by the ruling majority in Kosovo. This court will come to a verdict taking into account International Law, the situation on the ground, history of the region, etc. Predictions are that the verdict will be reached by this time next year. Lets see what the wise gray people in the court will conclude. The decision of this court is not binding, and each individual country will decide weather to respect their decision or not which means that it will have no practical effect (the USA, UK, France, will certainly not disgrace themselves by changing their position on the matter). The circumstances there today are a product of violence that came from both sides. To draw Kosovo into the map today is a presumption and a political opinion but far from a definite (however likely it may be) reality. It is interesting that you have already drawn Kosovo into the map while you are still searching for "a simple clear cut guideline". I am very interested to hear according to which guidelines have you decided to do so? TripioTripio (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you the IP or not?
 * The academic problem is that you have two opposing and at times contradicting concepts of international law And that is why I propose not to attempt judging whether a country has the right to claim independence or not. We are absolutely no institution to do so. This would be WP:OR and endorse POV discussions.
 * The circumstances there today are a product of violence that came from both sides. This is exactly what I mean. It's an irrelevant statement and doesn't bring us any further. You are only attracting people from either side to state their irrelevant opinion on your claim. These opinions are then even less constructive with respect to designing a stable solution.
 * The International Court of Justice is to determine the legality of the unilateral declaration That may be. However, I agree with you that either Russia and Serbia or Kosovo and the US will give a damn about such a decision. We will remain with the situation that there are different viewpoints. My rationale would be to reflect all viewpoints, if there are different viewpoints and abandon discussions as to which viewpoint is more justified.
 * It is interesting that you have already drawn Kosovo into the map What are you talking about? I did not draw it in any map. I do not even know which map you mean... T om ea s y T C 13:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no I am not the IP 41... "What are you talking about? I did not draw it in any map. I do not even know which map you mean." Take it easy man, no need to be aggressive, the map which is at the top of the page, the political map of Europe (below the heading "this page is disputed..."), take a look. "My rationale would be to reflect all viewpoints, if there are different viewpoints and abandon discussions as to which viewpoint is more justified." Sounds good to me, but if I understand your point correctly, then the page will have to contain two maps of Europe. Tripio (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How do you come to the idea that I drew the map. If you accuse people of deeds they have no connection to, you will likely not make them happy. Perhaps you should not take it too easy with making such claims.
 * In terms of maps you would actually need an enormous amount of maps to reflect every individual viewpoint, because Kosovo is by far not the only contentious entity. If you scan through the article there are many more maps, and most of them do not show Kosovo as a state. My idea about reflecting both viewpoints would mean (in terms of a map) to use a dashed border, for instance. T om ea s y T C 14:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw that you answered to each and every comment on this page, not only in the Kosovo topic, so I assumed that you are a moderator of this page and therefore that you drew or imported the maps. I extend my sincerest apologies because I see that you were very disturbed by my allegation. A dashed border is fine i suppose. It reflects the absurdity of the situation perfectly.Tripio (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Until then it is formally according to resolution 1244 of the UN Security Council a part of Serbia.


 * The UN Resolution 1244 never said, in any part, that “Kosovo is an inalienable part of Serbia, and forever will be” — this is just a delusion from the people wh still dreams about lost medieval battles. The resolution just stablished the parameter for NATO and UN military occupation of Kosovo, saying that the province was a part of a country that does not exist anymore — Yugoslavia. And even one of the former halves of Yugoslavia — Montenegro — now recognizes Kosovo as a nation. 1244 is closer to Badinter than to SANU.


 * Anyway, a compromise solution could be drawing dashed lines in the borders of Kosovo, North Cyprus, Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh, putting textual links on them. And it should stop there — I mean, it should not include stuff like Sealand or Republika Srpska... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.216.113 (talk) 05:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. But as it stands now, it makes it look as though Kosovo is in fact a fully recognized nation state, whereas no mention of Abkhazia et al exists. Whoever has added the present map is clearly going on POV. Either Kosovo should be removed entirely, or South Ossetia, Abkhazia, North Cyprus and Nagorno-Karabakh be added. 41.245.164.13 (talk) 08:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not agree that all those cases are the same and should be treated as such. Transnistria, for example, is not even recognized by a single universally recognized state. The question as to how independent and recognized are states is a question that hinges on the reaction from other states. So, it cannot be the same if a country partly enjoys recognition or not. T om ea s y T C 16:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

But why is Kosovo listed as being a European state, and included on the map, when none of the others even have dotted lines? This is POV and factually wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.187.61 (talk) 11:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I find discussion about Kosovo stupid, Kosovo lives out Serbian law and Serbian reality, has it's own constitution, population, ethnic distribution and has customs with Serbia...So Kosovo is de facto divised and now that has declared it's indipendence this thing is stronger. I don't think that Kosovo should be compared to South Ossetia, Abkhzia, Nagorno Karabakh...etc, Maybe Kosovo shouldn't be listed as an independent country but with it's own borders and not inside the Administrative system of Serbia in the map, Kosovo is more simillar to Taiwan in my opinion, that doesn't figure as an independent state but it doesn't figure as part of China either and has it's own government and Administrative system...So shortly my opinion is that Kosovo should be on the map but not in the list of indipendent countries...

Incorrect map
The "Europe according to the EU" map shows Gibraltar as "other European" as opposed to European Union. Gibraltar joined the European Union alongside the United Kingdom of which Gibraltar is a territory. Could someone please correct this. --SJ3000 (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Very well observed, you are of course right. Let's see how will find the time to fix this micro bug. T om ea s y T C 21:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Is Turkey a part of Europe?
Politically, maybe as a small part of Turkey is found in Europe so one can argue that the entire country should be treated as a European one. Geographically, no except for that little area found in Europe. The Asian part of Turkey IMO is not a part of Europe as it is not located within the European continent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there someting in the article that you do not like? What would you like to change? T om ea s y T C 07:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This article needs a big, fat POV-disputed tag at the top. Are the authors not aware that there is no consensus as to what Europe is? Why do they just make the assumption that it is X, when the entire article could be rewritten from the point of view that Europe is Y or even Z? Are we talking about Europe culturally? Historically? Linguistically? Demographically? Religiously? Geographically?--Phalangst (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Try to be constructive. What would you do better, so that the big, fat POV tag was not necessary? T om ea s y T C 13:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Constructive? I am being constructive. This article is written entirely from the point of view that Europe is something many people feel it is not. So, if you want to leave it as it is, fine...simply put a POV tag at the top. If not, we have problems.


 * The majority of Europe's native population disagrees with your assessment...why is the rest of the Middle East, which has more to do with Turkey geographically, culturally and historically, not part of this "European" entity then, too? Quite frankly, if Turkey becomes a part of Europe, over time, Europe will become exactly what it is not: the Middle East. For nearly six hundred years, Turkey was at the heart of an Ottoman Empire that expanded into the entranceway to Europe, but also, and in particular, in the direction to the Middle East and North Africa. This is what makes Turkey different from Europe.


 * I don't like the EU, and most of Europe doesn't like the EU, either. Anyone who feels so passionate about this anti-democratic,anti-European, multi-culti-social-capitalist monster as to write it in their profile as you did...
 * ....should not be deciding what Europe means for the rest of us, but that is just my opinion.--Phalangst (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please stop lifting this to a personal level. As long as you are just putting your opinions mixed with an aggressive tone, I see no point to continue discussion with you. This talk page is in place to discuss improvements to the article. So, last request: Make clear propositions as to how to improve the article! If you are just here to voice your hate about the EU, Turkey, me or Wikipedia, then you are in the wrong place. T om ea s y T C 14:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I already explained what is wrong: the article is an opinion. You made no rebuttal whatsoever aside from dismissing everything I said as an "opinion". Why dismiss my opinion when the article itself is only an opinion? A European country should be written in as "European" only if there is no controversy that it is, in fact, European. I have an aggressive tone because I made a suggestion and you simply avoided the issue by telling me to say exactly "how" to improve the article. I have little doubt in my mind that this was nothing more than an attempt to get me so annoyed that I scatter off. Again, I ask you: unblock the article so I can eliminate the POV. Who made you the guardian of this page? UNBLOCK IT NOW!!! - Phalangst
 * Who made you the king of wikipedia? Knippschild (talk) 09:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you talking to me, or to Tomeasy? For starters, my first complaint is that Istanbul is not in Europe, and therefore cannot be considered a European city. In fact, someone only recently edited | 1 the Istanbul page and put in the detail that it was a European city. Sorry for what you claim to be a "personal attack", Tomeasy...but remember, I'm not the one who loudly proclaimed my beliefs on Wikipedia for all to see, thus giving others a clue as to why this article says what it does. I repeat: it is a known fact that the European peoples do not support the ideas that this page reflects. However, I do agree that your ideas are the "spirit of the age"...well, congratulations - Phalangst
 * If you ask me to unblock the article - you ask the wrong person. I did not block it, I am not willing to unblock it, and most importantly I cannot unblock it. Anyway, you should be able to edit it and principally you are invited to do so. If understand your intentions correctly, your changes are likely to be controversial so it would be better to discuss the up front here. I am still missing a concrete proposal of what you want to change. Shall Turkey be removed from the list? Is that what you want?
 * In any case before you engage deeper into such matters you should ask yourself, whether you are in the mood to have a respectful discussion with other people, open for their arguments, and looking forward to improve the article in a common effort, rather than battling your opinion through. Honestly, I have to say that from the attitude you displayed so far it seems unlikely that people (who are not sharing your opinion) will appreciate discussing with you. That is an important point, because we all want to enjoy our time here, especially when opinions diverge it is necessary to remain respectful. To copy parts of my user page to this talk page, was not only inappropriate in content—you should be aware that actions like this also set the climate of a discussion in a very negative way. So please reconsider your approach towards people on Wikipedia.
 * When signing your comments, just do ~ . It saves you time and provides more information. T om ea s y T C 15:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, and again I apologize, but I really am getting tired of seeing the left-wing/Islamification-aiding POV in every wake of life and I think it is bad for Wikipedia to bill itself as the encyclopedia anyone can edit when this is, in fact, not true. First and foremost, the reference to Istanbul being the largest city in Europe must go. To the people who argue the opposite: have you ever been to Istanbul? What is it about Istanbul that makes it thoroughly European? There is nothing European about Istanbul. We draw a line through Russia and say half of that country is not "Europe" - which I would agree with - but Istanbul's claim to being "European" hinges on the fact that it borders a narrow strip that connects to Europe. You might as well call North Africa and the Middle East "Europe" then, as only a small body of water, the Mediterranean, divides these regions from what we undisputably would call Europe. Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco....I don't see anyone trying to argue that they are "European", at least not yet.-- Phalangst 15:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there is a difference between Istanbul and Morocco and Tunesia. The most popular border between Europe and Asia is the Bosporus and Istanbul lies on both side. The Mediterranean is the most popular border between Europe and Africa and bot, Tunesia and Morocco, lie completely on one (the African) side. T om ea s y T C 16:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The thrace region in which istanbul is apart of the thrace region is a part of europe period a line is drawn though turkey just as its drawn through russia not all of turkey is in europe--Wikiscribe (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no. Only a tiny portion of Northern Turkey is officialy considered a part of Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.33.174.133 (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well look on the map and tell me what percentage of Turkey that is. Maybe you can find out exactly? I wouldn't guess it to be over 5%, maybe 2-3% at the most. Still, let's say it is 5%. Who is to say this 5% should even be considered Europe if it is infact a part of Turkey, a state that is, upwards to 95%, a part of the Middle East? What I mean by that is: is there even one other country where a ridiculously small portion of its territory is said to fall within the realm of one continent and that is looked at as reason enough to say it is not completely part of another? -Phalangst

By the same logic that describes Turkey as part of Europe, then France is a Pacific nation (it has some small islands in the Pacific Ocean) and Britain is a South Atlantic country due to the Falkland Islands and South Georgia. In fact, the real claim that Turkey has to be European is based not in common sense but in political advantage and prestige. - Dughall —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.134.103 (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly, and this is precisely why I argue for Istanbul's removal from the list and further references to Istanbul throughout the article. Another thing to consider is what is the core of Istanbul's population. Are these people from Bulgaria, Romania, Germany, Poland, France, Czech Republic, Greece, etc.? I highly doubt it. The population is not European, the culture is not European, the religion is not European, it shares a six hundred year history in association with the Middle East but no membership to the European Union, its only claim to "European-ness" lies in its proximity to Europe. There are too many maps on this page that shade in parts of Turkey as if to suggest Turkey is part of Europe. Specific examples: the "biogeographic" map, the "demographics" map, the "political geography" map...also, the "Predominant religions in Europe" is very very pov-heavy, suggesting that - looks like I was right, Tomeasy - Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria, as well as the Middle East, are part of Europe. The stage is set for Europe to become the new Middle East...wikipedia should not be helping this along.-- Phalangst 22:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Phalangst seems to be unable to make any factual argument for his case, this discussion includes nothing but personal opinions. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, so unless Phalanst starts discussing ways to improve the article and provide dispassionate verifiable facts as opposed to emotional unsourced opinions, I suggest that this opinion piece be removed from the talk page as it doesn't deal with improving the article. JdeJ (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about, JDEJ? Speaking of opinions, thanks for your opinion about the facts I list being "personal opinions". Where are YOUR sources that Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria should be shaded in as Europe? I am trying to improve the article, but it seems you really, really want to keep the article as it is, which is highly POV and merely someone's unconventional opinion as to what constitutes Europe. I'm sick and tired of this. -- Phalangst 22:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You've made your opinion clear, you don't think Turkey is in Europe. Your personal opinions about Europe's geography, not to mention all the nonsense about "Europe becoming the new Middle East" is of no interest and no relevance whatsoever. Once again, this is not the place for people to venture their personal opinions, and that is all you are doing. This discussion should be moved from the talk page as it's only disrupting constructive discussions about the article. JdeJ (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your opinion about what is "disrupting constructive discussions". But am I really now? Or is this just what you call it when someone says something you disagree with and points out something inherently wrong with the page? All I hear is newspeak. Why will you not answer me and tell me why parts of Africa are shaded in as Europe? And if I am so wrong, why is it the only people who have commented on this page and actually given arguments are those who have disagreed with the article and agreed with me? From you and Tomeasy, I have yet to hear anything other than "this is a personal opinion", "your discussion does not deal with improving the article". Nonsense. I feel like I'm talking to a automated answering service. -Phalangst
 * This article contains several maps defining Europe according to different viewpoints, found in the section Political Geography. Not one of these maps, nor the map of Europe at the top of the article, includes any part of Africa. As the article points out, there are various views on the definitions of Europe, all of which are dealt with by the article in neutral way and the article refers to another article explicitly dealing with this. The article is in a good state as it is, allowing for all the different interpretations. JdeJ (talk)
 * Ummmm...look again. Did you even look at the article? I even said the title of the map, the one which includes Africa. Yes, "different viewpoints" are expressed in the article...it just so happens that none of these "different viewpoints" are conventional and they are all entirely political, which is WHY I suggested a POV tag in the first place. But I guess your opinion matters more than mine, that the "article is in a good state as it is". You say this is not the place for people to venture with their personal opinions...well why do you think the article says what it does now? Do you think that a collaborative of Aborigines cared so much about the topic of Europe to come and edit the article? -Phalangst
 * Nowhere in the article is it suggested that Europe includes Africa, the fact that a small part of Africa (and Asia) is seen on some maps is natural as Europe borders both Asia and Africa and any map placed insida a square will show areas outside Europe. This doesn't mean that they are a part of Europe, and the article makes that completely clear. If you want to construct new maps for the article, you are free to do so. JdeJ (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Look at the maps and the titles of the maps. When something is shaded in and the map says it portrays "Predominant religions in Europe", one should assume that is Europe. Nobody makes a map of "religions in the United States" and shades in Mexico and South America. I can't believe you can't see this obvious flaw. The same with "Simplified Languages of Europe"...which, coincidently, shades in Turkey and the rest of the Near East while leaving out the part of North Africa that appears on the map. Why? Also, note that the one map which talks about Europe also shades in Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia. Oops. When we draw a map and shade in things, the shaded in part is supposed to illustrate what the caption says it illustrates. You don't see a map of Napoleon's influence that shades in parts of India "just because". So maybe the solution here is to retitle the caption. I would do this, but of course, Wikipedia likes to monopolize opinions by locking the pages of an "encylopedia anyone can edit". Even the caption of the WWI map is point of view, suggesting that the Central Powers were "European powers" - oh really? So the Ottoman Empire was European? According to who? Proximity should not matter. Either something is Europe, or it isn't. The Middle East can't be European one minute and then not European the next. Lastly, of course, is the textual reference to Istanbul as a city in the sidebar. I understand if the section which has different viewpoints as to what Europe is talks about Turkey, Istanbul, etc...but when it is in the sidebar, now Wikipedia is choosing to endorse an unconventional viewpoint as its own viewpoint. The same is true when it lists one of Europe's language groups as the Semitic languages. This is EXACTLY what I was pointing out before. To suggest that continental Europe is any of these things is completely groundbreaking and controversial. -Phalangst
 * I'm shunning this discussion, but I'll just address the language part: Malta is closer to Africa than to the European mainland, but I have never seen it not counted as a European island. A third of a million Maltese speakers are certainly enough to include the language family in the infobox? -- Jao (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A laughable suggestion. Malta has a population of 419,285. Look at the North America page. It says: NA's languages are English, Spanish and French, AMONG OTHERS. French is where the cut-off was made in what could otherwise turn into a laundry list of languages that, taken as a composite whole, do not represent what N.A. represents linguistically. In America, there are 419,285 speakers of just about every language on the planet. Again, the cut-off was at French. Over 5 million people speak French. How many people in Europe's population of over 700 million speak Maltese again? - Phalangst
 * I agree that there is a point to consistency between the continent articles. On the other hand, Maltese is an official language of a European country, and even an official language of the EU, the continent's primary supernatural entity. I don't know if anything similar can be said for any of the cut-off North American languages. -- Jao (talk) 14:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and don't worry about "shunning" the discussion, if one can even do such a thing...there isn't much of a discussion here, considering that the Wikipedia cabal has little to offer other than bland excuses as to why an article about "Europe" should remain a misleading, politically-charged and controversial appeasement of the Eurabia paupers. It appears it is even too much to request a POV-tag on the top. -Phalangst

Georgia, Armenia (and Azerbaijan) is regarded by many people as European countries, and with this consideration, why should not Turkey be counted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.116.17 (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Turkey's asian part is not in the "middle east" its the "near east".Just a clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.69.140.118 (talk) 12:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course Turkey is not in Europe. As everybody knows Europe goes from the Atlantic to the Urals. Only a tiny proportion of Turkey is in Europe, and Turkey has absolutely nothing in common with Europe. So no. Turkey is not in Europe. On the other hand, Georgia and Armenia are in Europe. Every European knows that. Even Russia is in Europe because most of its people live in Europe (West of the Urals), and they share a common history and culture with Europe. Something that Turkey does not. 2 January 2009 by Tamoka —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamoka (talk)

Preamble
"European nations played a predominant role in global affairs from the 16th century onwards, especially after the beginning of Colonialism. By the 17th and 18th centuries, European nations controlled most of Africa, the Americas, and large portions of Asia." - This is utter nonsense. European 'predominance' was no where near global in the 16th century, and it is farcical to say that by the 17th and 18th centuries European nations controlled most of Africa, or Asia. Even the North American mainland hadn't been properly explored by this point. It wasn't until the late 19th century even that Europeans were able to penetrate into Africa. There is a huge lack of research behind the claims above and quite frankly it should be scrapped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.232.135 (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Source? 41.245.177.213 (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Source: D.H.Fieldhouse "Economics and Empire 1830-1914" (New York: Cornell Uni Press) page3 - In 1800 only 34% of the earth's surface had any kind of european presence. A figure which by 1914 rose to 84%. It was quite simply impossible for Europeans to have any kind of control in Africa before the end of the nineteenth century. Not only did Europeans require the extraordinary technological gap which developed with industrialisation and allowed weapons such as the maxim machine gun, but without the development of Quinine and other medicinal advances Europeans died in their droves from African diseases. Hence the term 'white man's grave'. It is quite legitimate to claim that by the late nineteenth and early 20th centuries European empires spanned the globe and controlled vast amounts of human and material resources, but this is simply not the case before the 1850s. And especially not in Africa. Infact if you follow the link that the above-cited text takes you to under "controlled most of Africa" it tells you straight away that the most significant phase of the process is the Partition of Africa itself, which doesn't happen until the 1880s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.195.8 (talk) 02:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

So a quote from one obscure book is a reliable source? Dr Rgne (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the current statement has no sources whatsoever. And the wikipedian articles about the Colonisation of Africa or History of usa do support the above claims. And they have plenty of sources. Alatopi (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

New map?
Why not use the "cooler" globe.-view map? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.224.134 (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland in Europe
Hi there everybody, my name is Dave and I live in Dublin. On the Europe page in wiki it does not give the Republic of Ireland it's full title and only says 'Ireland'. It would be great if an admin could change the titles that say Ireland to the ROI. The title Ireland refers to the whole isle of Ireland where as the Europe page is just talking about the Republic. I am proud of my wee country, it's history and culture, and therefore I like to see it called the right name.

Thanks Dave

You may but may I point out that the ROI's officel name is actualy just Ireland probably because until 1998 The ROI claimed Northern Ireland. just thougth you aught to know. Lemonade100 (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2008 (GMT)


 * In one word, no. The soverign part of the island of Ireland is officially called 'Ireland', not the 'Republic of Ireland'. ROI is, however, the description of the state. ROI is used in many instances to insure clarity between it and Northern Ireland which is a part of the United Kingdom, and whose statistics are included on that list under that heading. To Lemonade - the claiming of Northern Ireland has nothing to do with Ireland's name it is just that, the name of the country. Undering the Good Friday Agreement you referenced Ireland recognises Northern Ireland's status as a willing part of the United Kingdom, but it also sets the protocol for any future union between the two regions. Syferus (talk) 03:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Climate Article AND its Source have a Mistake!
Everyone agrees with me I suppose that 15 Degrees Fahrenheit does not convert into 8 degrees Celsius. The correct conversion would be -9.44 degrees Celsius. But I would rather forgo that statistic as the source is clearly a little flawed. Instead I would recommend removing that statistic and inform www.worldbook.com that they have made a mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nixwisser123 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Scots Language
Is spoken by over 1.5 million and is not represented on the linguistic map (Image:Simplified Languages of Europe map.svg), unlike Scottish Gaelic, which only has a speaking population of some >60,000 in Scotland. It is also a recognized "regional or minority language" under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Yi ken, aye? ; ) Donnchadh Rus (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Might be the authors of the map regarded it as an English dialect rather than a language on its own. You probably know that the distinction between the two has a somewhat floating border. Whereas speakers often like to call what they speak a language, outsiders often classify very close languages as dialects, see Valencian vs. Catalan; Macedonian vs. Bulgarian; Flemish vs. Dutch; Swiss German vs. German. For many people these questions are very emotional and they can quarrel endlessly about it, I hope you're not out for it. In any case, I am in no position to decide such a question, just wanted to let you know that I am aware of the difficulty. T om ea s y T C 22:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Granted, however Scots shares the same relationship with English as say, Irish does with Scottish Gaelic, or Faroese and Danish share with Swedish. Indeed Scots is not always mutually intelligible with English as my prior examples are with each other, and indeed holds far more speakers than say; Frisian, Scottish Gaelic, Faroese, Romansh, Luxembourgish et cetera that are all marked unitalicized despite their controversial status. Whether or not the author(s)' consider it to be a mere dialect or not, it is recognized as a regional language by the UK and EU, and they hold more authority of the matter than your average Wikipedian.


 * I am well aware of the difficulty of this situation, however the representation of languages of a similar technical status yet lesser presence on the map creates inconsistencies in the author's judgement, and therefore inaccuracy. Donnchadh Rus (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Manx membership of the EU
Contrary to several images on this page, the Isle of Man is not a member of the European Union. It is a crown dependency of Queen Elizabeth II who holds the Lordship separately and equally from that of the United Kingdom's, and thus does not share EU membership along with the UK in the same fashion as Gibraltar.

See the following PDF for some detail: http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/ebusiness/advantages/protocol3.pdf

I'm on a roll today... Donnchadh Rus (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You are of course right that this island is a not part of the EU. Just I did not find the map that holds this wrong claim. Could you point it out more clearly, please. T om ea s y T C 22:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I got my maps muddled up. Here's what I meant: In Image:Europe, EU.png Man is simply missing. In Image:WEU Map.svg Man is incorrectly marked as a member of the WEU. In Image:Map-Coeurope.jpg Man is incorrectly marked as a member of the Council of Europe. Donnchadh Rus (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I see no problem with Man missing on the EU map. If the resolution does not show this island, it can by definition not be marked incorrectly.
 * The WEU map is indeed wrong and should be corrected, if indeed Man is not part of the WEU, which I believe is the case, because the UK is mentioned as a member and (as you said correctly) Man is not part of the UK.
 * The map on the CoE is not necessarily wrong. In the location where you would expect Man, I see this ugly peninsular, which I wonder what it is. Probably the map was just drawn imprecisely and this peninsular was meant to be Man and hence the color coding wrong. However, this is speculation; one might equally say that Man is not shown on this map. About Man's membership in the CoE, again I am not 100% sure, but believe you whan you say it is not part of the CoE. I would be happy if someone improved this map and drew the area more precisely, but I do not think it is necessary, as there is no island drawn in that place.
 * If you feel like, you may go ahead an improve all three maps, i.e., draw this island an (un)apply the correct color code. T om ea s y T C 20:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are working on the EU map file, you might also want to correct another mistake it contains: Gibraltar should be color coded in light blue not dark blue. T om ea s y T C 20:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Asia Minor
I object to the constant attempts to suggest that Asia Minor is part of Europe. For example in File:Europe, EU.png, it is perfectly unclear why only the European parts of Russia are highlighted, but both the European and the Asian parts of Turkey. This is inconsistent. Similarly, File:Europe's population growth - CIA 2008.jpg shows only the European part of Russia, while highlighting the Asian parts of Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan. Worse, the image suggests that this is what the CIA does, while the CIA factbook is simply the source of the numbers used to create the map. Yet again, File:Europe biogeography countries.svg does the same thing: Russia and Kazakhstan are treated as transcontinental, but Turkey isn't. The UN subregions map, File:Location-Europe-UNsubregions, Kosovo as part of Serbia.png does it properly, except for the weird implication that Armenia is a transcontinental country with 100% of its territory in Asia, but that's probably not a bad description of the situation. I suggest the offending images should either be corrected or removed. --dab (𒁳) 11:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about?
 * Sorry, I've just read the first objection of yours and already decide to reply, irrespective of hat your saying later on, because what you claim wit respect to File:Europe, EU.png is just wrong! In contrast to your claim, the Asian and European part of Russia are "highlighted" equally!! And, of course, entire Turkey is highlighted as a EU candidate country, because this fact simply applies to the country as a whole. I hope the rest of your comment was less disqualifying than your opening. All the best. T om ea s y T C 14:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Country Statistics
I took the list of countries at the end of the article, together with their area, population and density. I copied them onto an Excel table and added up the numbers.

The totals came out very different, as follows:

- Area            - Article:  10,180,000       - Sum:  26,658,778

- Population      - Article: 731,000,000       - Sum: 839,929,923

- Density         - Article:          70       - Dividing the two "Article" numbers: 71,8     - Dividing the two "Sum" numbers:   31,5

These are very different results!

Am I doing something wrong? please enlighten me.

Regards,

loboarte loboarte@ig.com.br

Loboarte (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The bulk part of the discrepancies you discovered stems from Russia. Actually, you did not need Excel to find that out. Just look at the area specified for Russia and compare that to the total. Other errors come from double mentioning of some areas, like Kosovo, whose numbers are also included in Serbia. The rational is that the Total figures refer to Europe, while the individual figures refer to the countries listed. T om ea s y T C 12:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)