Template talk:Europe/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Republic of Macedonia 1.1 2006 2 Geographic definition and stuff 3 Flag? 4 Dependencies 4.1 Svalbard and Jan Mayen 5 Cantus 6 Mutual Exclusivity 7 Font size 8 Holy See 9 Poll: Which items should be listed? 9.1 OPEN POLLS 9.1.1 Kazakhstan 9.1.2 Armenia 9.1.3 Flag 9.2 CLOSED POLLS 9.2.1 Russia & Turkey 9.2.2 Azerbaijan 9.2.3 Svalbard 9.2.4 Cyprus 9.2.5 Azores 9.2.6 Åland 9.2.7 Jan Mayen 9.2.8 Akrotiri and Dhekelia 9.2.9 Explanatory footers 9.2.10 Georgia 9.3 Discussion 9.3.1 Whitaker's Almanack 2004 9.3.2 World Book 9.3.3 Britannica 9.3.4 Another source 10 Other European footer 11 Category 12 Unneeded polls about including a territory into Europe 13 Cantus rv ??? 14 Spain and Portugal 15 Armenia and Georgia 16 European Broadcasting Union 17 A map? 18 Compromise? 19 Armenia and Georgia - 2 20 poll taking too much time 21 This poll is simply unwiki 22 Why #Russia & Turkey? 23 Compromise revisited 24 To voters against inclusion of both Cyprus and Armenia 25 Iceland 26 TFD Nomination July 2005 27 Dependent territories / special territories 28 Åland 29 Regions and countries 30 Wisest Solution Europe Asia Topography 31 EEA? 32 what is the deal with this new footer? 33 Israel 34 Clutter 35 Category redux 36 Abkhazia 37 Cyprus, Akrotiri and Dhekelia, and the TRNC

Republic of Macedonia

As »pesky Slovene« (this goes to Shallot :--) (see MediaWiki_talk:SFRY)) I would like to change current designation of Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in this footer to (at least) Republic of Macedonia - since the article itself has such a name and it is also shorter. Any objections? --XJamRastafire 11:04, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Being neither Slovene nor Macedonian, I totally agree.

Jakob Stevo 22:01, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

This should remain as it is so as not to confuse the modern-day state with the Greek province of the same name, if you were Greek you´d feel the Macedonians were trying to make a name for themselves off of Ancient Greek history.

It seems someone changed it in the meantime to say just "Macedonia", I'll amend it a bit. --Shallot 12:16, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If nobody minds, I'll change it to FYR Macedonia, which atleast indicates there's still a dispute about the name but is shorter than either "Republic of Macedonia" or the full expansion of FYROM. Aris Katsaris 20:38, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The official name is FYR Macedonia specifically for NPOV reasons, to avoid upsetting Greece who do not want an apparant claim to parts of Macedonia that are within its boundaries. CheeseDreams 00:12, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Macedonia" links to Republic of Macedonia, inevitably causing confusion with Macedonia proper. Who can explain this discrepancy?--Theathenae 29 June 2005 11:52 (UTC)

2006

The templates now say R. Macedonia or Republic of Macedonia. This discussion has been done to death and back on Talk:Republic of Macedonia. We may have to go back to FYR Macedonia if any of the other Macedonias become republics, which seems unlikely now. --GunnarRene 20:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. —Nightstallion (?) 13:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Geographic definition and stuff

If we include Turkey and Georgia because of those bits of their territory that's in Europe, should we also include Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan? All these corner cases are a bit unwieldy... --Shallot 20:25, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd say we should follow the country list at Europe, so yes to Turkey, no to Georgia etc. Matthewmayer 00:13, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Europe mentions three additional countries after the main list, so we might as well add them here. -- User:Docu

User:Wik has been removing the following countries from the list: Azerbaijan, Georgia and Kazakhstan. Portions of these countries lie in Europe, in the same way that a portion of Turkey lies in Europe, but Wik is not removing Turkey, so his removal of these other countries is not consequential to his own criteria. Perhaps he should explain his reverts in the summary, instead of using the vacuous 'rv' or the childish 'rv moron'. --Cantus 00:35, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Kazakhstan, at least, is pretty ridiculous. The part of Kazakhstan that is in Europe is only in Europe in an utterly marginal way. I'm pretty dubious about Azerbaijan, too. Not sure about Georgia. How about Cyprus, which joins the EU on Saturday? john 01:23, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that Georgia and Kazakhstan should be put in this MediaWiki. WhisperToMe 05:07, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

CIA - The World Factbook -- Field Listing - Location lists as partially located in Europe: Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Turkey, but not Cyprus nor Georgia. List all four or none? Pædia | talk 16:02, 2004 May 3 (UTC)

Russia clearly should be listed as part of Europe. Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan should not. So far as I can tell, only insignificant corners of them can be considered to be in Europe. Georgia probably should not, either. Turkey has a small but significant part that is clearly in Europe (unlike Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, which have parts in Europe based around vaguely defined borders in the east), and likes to consider itself a European country. Cyprus is clearly not geographically in Europe, but it is a member of the EU. john 17:18, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

The Columbia Encyclopedia states of Europe 'By convention, it is separated from Asia by the Urals and the Ural River in the east; by the Caspian Sea and the Caucasus in the southeast; and by the Black Sea, the Bosporus, the Sea of Marmara, and the Dardanelles in the south.' The majorities of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Turkey are in Asia. What makes parts of one more significant than others? In Azerbaijan the 'insignificant corner...considered to be in Europe' contains the capital Baku. Why 'Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan should not', but 'Georgia probably should not'? Georgia is south of the Caucasus, hence the highest point in Europe (Mount Elbrus, 5633 m) is located in Russia. Pædia | talk 20:02, 2004 May 3 (UTC)

Georgia is fine to not be. On the other hand, Europe is frequently considered a cultural entity. As largely Christian countries, Georgia and Armenia (and Cyprus) would probably be considered to be more European than Azerbaijan or Kazakhstan, even though they're geographically in Asia. At any rate, The border of Europe at the Dardanelles was the original defining feature of Europe. There's water, it's easy to determine. The borders of Europe along the Caucasus and the Urals are rather more difficult to figure out. The eastern Caucasus kind of peter out, and it's pretty arguable that Baku is on the southern side. And saying that part of Kazakhstan is in Europe is completely arbitrary - the Ural mountains peter out north of the Kazakh border. On the other hand, Istanbul is a European city by any definition, and Russia has been a major European power since the 18th century. john 00:28, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I had the understanding that Template:Europe is geographic, with Template:EU countries (or Template:EU countries and candidates) and Council of Europe (all the above except Kazakhstan) as the political equivalents. If this is wrong, I apologise.

You would be correct to say the border 'along the Caucasus' 'are rather more difficult to figure out' and 'arguable that Baku is on the southern side.' Can we at least agree that northern Azerbaijan is in geographic Europe?

However, the border extends by 'the Ural River in the east', including a minor section of Kazakhstan.

It probably is more correct to state 'Istanbul is a European city by any definition' except culturally Middle Eastern.

Pædia | talk 05:37, 2004 May 6 (UTC)

Hi Paedia. I don't really have the energy to argue about this stuff anymore, although I'm glad you're willing to actually discuss this stuff, instead of just reverting. To be honest with you, I have no idea what Template:Europe and its equivalents are for. My only real feeling is that only one of these should be listed at the bottom of any particular country page, and as such, we should have to decide on one region for each country to be in. By that standard, I'd say only Russia of the various questionable cases ought to go in Europe, and the rest should go in Middle East or Central Asia. But whatever. I don't see how these things are especially useful at all. Why do we need a table at the bottom of every country page linking it to every other country on the same continent with it? Why is this useful? And that's all I'll say on the subject for now. Maybe if I get up the energy for a fight at some time in the future, I'll just list all these pages on VfD. Until then, do what you like - obviously on the factual question of what countries geographically have bits in Europe, you are right, I just question the usefulness of this whole endeavor. john 06:18, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I'd include Cyprus and Turkey and pretty much every country in the EU. Also countries that take part in the Eurovision Songcontest should be considered. Kazachstan and Azerbijan are to far away. In mopst geography sources I know of they are seen as part of Asia. --MGM 07:07, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

Israel participates in the song contest. Is it in Europe? David.Monniaux 08:02, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

No.

I was under the opinion that Europe ended at the Bosphorus and Dardanels, only including Turkey due to the bit near Constantinople. CheeseDreams 00:15, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That is true

Istanbul (Not Constantinople) :p --Focoe 15:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

good timing %\ --tasc 15:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I just keep outdoing myself=)) --Focoe 20:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Flag?

Why does this article include the European Union flag? --Gutza 13:55, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's the European flag, not exclusively the European Union flag. -- User:Docu

See Logo & Flag page of the Council of Europe (not an EU body) here –Hajor

See earlier discussion at Talk:Europe. After EU taking over the flag, it is a POV that it stil is a European flag, but certainly not a NPOV. Therefore it should not be reinserted. --Arnejohs 10:15, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

*sighs*

Look, it is the flag of the Council of Europe, and hence of Europe the continent - this is a statement of fact, not a POV. Whether or not it is the flag of the EU as well is irrelevent to whether or not this is a fact.

Similarly, we have the flag of Chad on the pages about Romania (or vice versa) - just because two entities use the same flag, doesn't mean that we have to chose which one we prefer to claim has proper ownership (which really is a POV).

You yourself said that we, as an encyclopædia, should attempt to be correct in all things, not just the ones that are so in the popular consiousness. This is one of those points.

I suppose we could have a footnote pointing out that the flag is also used by the EU, but that they are wholly distinct entities and uses...

James F. (talk) 10:42, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

1. The EU flag (even the image file is named Eunion.png) was removed from the Europe article April 3. No one has argued that it should be inserted. I take that as an agreement.
2. A flag is a symbol and in the MediaWiki it is used as such. That is: It should give the wanted associations. This is not the case here since it is being used in different contexts causing confusion.
3. As long as this is causing a discussion it is a POV to include the flag. Not including the flag is not an action; it is simply avoiding an action that is causing discussion. Not to include the EU flag in the European context certainly is consistent with the NPOV policy of Wikipedia.
4. Even though the European Council proposed the flag used for all the European countries, they use a different logo today (with an e in the middle of the stars) in order to avoid confusion with the EU flag.
5. I do not believe Albania, Andorra, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia , Iceland, Liechtenstein, Macedonia, Moldova, Monaco, Norway, Romania, Russia, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine and Vatican City find it naturally being labelled in an serious encyclopædia by the most pronounced symbol of the European Union, their flag. Do you?

Arnejohs 11:16, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Oh, never mind. I can see that we're not going to agree (though I would disagree about the removal of something not being an action). I give up (but not in).

I suppose there's a first time for everything. ;-)

James F. (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jdforrester, I hate being the stubborn one, but I think you have a nice way of stating the disagreement in a way by which we both can be open to reconsider the case in the future. Certainly there is a time for everything, may be even a time of giving a flag to a continent. Because in this context Europe is not EU and not even the European Council, but simply the continent Europe (which (by the way) is hard enough to define...). Have a nice day. ---Arnejohs 20:46, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

It is NOT the flag of Europe. It is not a flag for Switzerland, Monaco, The Isle of Man, Russia, The Ukraine, etc. in any way whatsoever. CheeseDreams 00:17, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It IS the flag of Europe. Switzerland, Monaco, Russia, and The Ukraine, are all members of the Council of Europe and consequently it is utterly false and nonsense to say that is not a flag for them "in any way whatsoever." Parmaestro 13:10, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And Belarus, Vatican, Kazakhstan are not members.--Nixer 13:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Dependencies

Comparing the List of dependent territories one might wonder which principle guides if a territory is listed as a dependency or not.

/Tuomas 01:12, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I add Åland – tentatively. /Tuomas 16:53, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

CIA - The World Factbook -- Field Listing - Dependency status lists Jan Mayen and Svalbard as equivalents to Gibraltar. Pædia 16:02, 2004 May 3 (UTC)

Paedia: I have also been wondering if not Jan Mayen and Svalbard should be included. I guess the Factbook is right in this case. --Arnejohs 16:14, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Jan Mayen and Svalbard are integral parts of Norway, just like Åland is an integral part of Finland. --Wik 18:41, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

Jan Mayen may be considered an integral part of Norway, but not Svalbard, which has a special arrangement through the Svalbard Treaty. --Arnejohs 18:46, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

By the treaty it became an integral part of Norway; the other provisions of the treaty don't detract from that. --Wik 19:00, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

The key phrase (the opening decission, actually) of the LoN's arbitration on Åland actually is

"The sovereignty of the Åland Islands is recognised to belong to Finland

...which is not the same as "The Åland Islands are recognised to belong to Finland". The islands's autonomy is guaranteed by international treaties, which Finland has followed rather minutiously, like their de-militarized status, which has not been exactly as minutiously respected. Which is the criterion used for inclusion/exclusion? By the way; Nice to see you've found the talk page, Wik! /Tuomas 13:54, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Åland is one of six provinces (laanit, singular - laani)—Aland, Etela-Suomen Laani, Ita-Suomen Laani, Lansi-Suomen Laani, Lappi, Oulun Laani—and therefore currently not a territory.

CIA - The World Factbook -- Field Listing - Dependent areas lists Gibraltar, Jan Mayen, and Svalbard as territories of their respective sovereign nations. Stating that they are 'integral parts of Norway' would be like Navassa Island, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, and a few Pacific Islands as 'integral parts of' the U.S.. Pædia 17:30, 2004 May 5 (UTC)

I guess that means that Wikipedia's "litmus test" is the listing in the CIA World Factbook. ...well, as a Finn I'm of course pleased, but I'm not quite sure if Ålanders are. ;-) /Tuomas 18:34, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I would not call it the only 'litmus test', but at least as recognised by the US government. Åland Islands in The Columbia Encyclopedia states 'Under pressure from the Soviet Union, Finland's parliament renounced the League guarantee of autonomy in 1951 but at the same time accorded the islanders additional rights of self-government.' Is this similar to the UK allowing Scotland certain self-governing? Pædia 19:02, 2004 May 5 (UTC)

There you have one of the controversies. /Tuomas 19:44, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

What was the nature of the League of Nations autonomy; a bilateral agreement between Finland and Sweden garanteed by the League? Even if this was the case one might wonder in what sense Finland had the authority to unilaterally cancel these provisions. Though the importance of this question in 1951, ought to have been relatively minor as compared as to the status of the relations to the Soviet Union and not only for Finland, but also for Sweden which had been a contender for the statehood of the islands three decades earlier. -- Mic 15:57, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't know exactly how the Russians reasoned, but basically I suspect their line of thought was that the Paris Peace Treaty had (like earlier the Molotow-Ribbentrop Pact and lesser known conversations between London and Moscow) alotted Finland to Soviet's sphere of interest; and Soviet client-states (aka: satellites) were not supposed to have obligations to others unless the obligation in question was in the interest of Russia. The opinion of one of my relatives, who has a professional interest in the issue, is that Åland's position according to international law technically is "disputed" - although a dispute that hasn't been brought up to surface in the last 50 years, as no-one has anything to gain from discussing the issue. Finland is careful not to provoke the Ålanders, who if upset might case international hullabaloo, but also not to provoke Russians - or Swedes. The policy is to adhere to the treaties without discussing whether they are still in force or not. (The ambiguity due to translations of terms "maakunta"/"landskap" to Russian, French or English, follows a broad successful track in the history of Finland's independence process.) /Tuomas 07:54, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Svalbard and Jan Mayen

I have added Svalbard again. There seems to be consensus it should be included. Its article states that it is a dependency, and that it lies "north of mainland Europe". By convention, it is included as part of Europe. If there are any objections, please put them here. Warofdreams 15:17, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

It's very odd to regard Svalbard and Jan Mayen as dependencies. Jan Mayen Is. is a to be considered a part of Nordland county, and Longyearbyen municipality as well as the rest of Svalbard is a part of the Kingdom of Norway. When it is a part of the kingdom it cannot be a dependency. It will be as to regard Northern Ireland a dependency of the United Kingdom, or to claim that Jersey and Guernsey as independent countries. Please begin to listen to the natives, or Wikipedia will only show what the majority of foreigners believe about different topics! Jakro64 20:25, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Norway seems to disagree:

'consists of the western and northern parts of the Scandinavian peninsula as well as the northern territories of Jan Mayen and the Svalbard archipelago'

'foreigner' Pædia 05:42, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

Norway.org does not disagree. (See better Norway!) It is clearly stated in the article that Jan Mayen and Svalbard are parts of the kingdom, i.e. that they cannot be dependencies. (The Northern Territory in Canada is not a Canadian dependency.) But Norway.org is wrong concerning Queen Maud Land, Peter I Is. and Bouvet Is.: These territories are not parts of the Kingdom, but Norwegian dependencies. Jakro64 10:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Further also Faroe Islands are an integrated part of the kingdom of Denmark and no dependency. The list of dependencies is therefore full of mistakes and not very serious. 213.164.101.242 08:02, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree the criteria seem to be loose. If the articles are correct, Jan Mayen and Svalbard are merely geographically remote but otherwise politically, administratively, and culturally well-integrated territories of Norway. As far as I know they have never had a distinct cultural or political identity or indigenous inhabitants who claim a special status -- i.e. unlike the Faroe Islands. A-giau 16:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, the Faroe Islands have extensive autonomy and have wanted to become independent a number of times in recent history. They are, maybe, an integrated part of the Kingdom of Denmark, but not of Denmark - same as Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles are integrated part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, but not of the Netherlands. — ナイトスタリオン _ㇳ–ㇰ — 16:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Cantus

Why is Cantus constantly reverting all these pages, without making a single comment here? Even Wik has participated in the talk page discussions. john 19:47, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

You need to take a better look at this page, because I have made comments. -Cantus 19:52, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

You made one comment, five days ago, and have not responded to any of the subsequent discussion of that topic. john 19:58, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

You've also reverted 7 times in the last 24 hours. john 20:03, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Cantus: After reviewing the edits, I happen to find myself mildly agreeing with your view (without prejudice to your rivals). Summarize your arguments here, and provide a good layout (using asterisks and daggers -- no superscript numerical footnotes please), and I shall support you. -- Kaihsu 20:05, 2004 May 5 (UTC) (admin)

Mutual Exclusivity

Don't these media wiki continent type tables need to be mutually exclusive? That is to say, Kazakhstan shouldn't be listed here because it is in Template:Central Asia. What we ought to do is divide up all countries and dependent territories into mutually exclusive groups, and then just stick to that. john 20:10, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Just to add - doing this would perhaps be, in some sense, POV. In that case, all of these tables are POV, and should be removed. john 20:12, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

No, they do not have to be mutually exclusive -- that is not how life is. Take Russia, for example. -- Kaihsu 20:19, 2004 May 5 (UTC)

Ditto. --Cantus 20:23, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

My point is that they're useless unless you make them mutually exclusive, because the point of these pages is to use them as a footer on country page articles. Since you generally only have one of these per country page, you have to decide which one each country is going to go on. These pages are not themselves articles, and only have value as far as they are a useful tool on the individual country pages. What's the point of listing Mongolia on MediaWiki:Central Asia, if we don't have a {{msg:Central Asia}} on the Mongolia page?john 20:24, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I'm just going to advocate deleting the whole mess. What useful purpose is served by these pages? john 20:25, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree with deleting the continent articles. Not as important to show all countries on the same continent on each country page. EU and NATO are much more important (see close and military allies at a glance) - having stuff like the continent boxes just encourages people to complain about having ANY boxes! Zoney 17:24, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree too. If I'm reading n article about, say, Belgium and I read that it's in Europe and want to know what other countries aer in Europe, I'll simply click on the link to Europe and see there. What's the point of having this box? --Kpalion 15:43, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Font size

Can an admin please tweak the font sizes? I can't see the list of dependencies clearly. Thanks. ✑whkoh | ✖ 04:15, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Done. --Cantus 07:00, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Holy See

This may be a minor issue, but there are differing opinions about how to list. I propose a compromise to list as "[[Vatican City|Holy See]]" or "[[Holy See]] ([[Vatican City]])".

CIA - The World Factbook -- FAQs states:

The term "Holy See" refers to the authority, jurisdiction, and sovereignty vested in the Pope and his advisors to direct the worldwide Catholic Church. The Holy See has a legal personality that allows it to enter into treaties as the juridical equal of a state and to send and receive diplomatic representatives. Vatican City, created in 1929 to administer properties belonging to the Holy See in Rome, is recognized under international law as a sovereign state, but it does not send or receive diplomatic representatives.

Pædia 15:11, 2004 Jun 17 (UTC)

Poll: Which items should be listed?

Each poll question must be voted by a minimum of 15 users. 70% of support is required for a position to be declared a winner (or 30% or less to be declared a loser). Once a position is declared a winner, the appropiate change must be made to the article.

Should this be listed on Wikipedia:Announcements per Wikipedia:Polling guidelines #4? Pædia 07:18, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. --Cantus 22:06, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Please vote using this format: #~~~ - Optional comments.

Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked 'Discussion'.

Other European footer

Hi there,

Due to the duplication of countries in both EU and Europe footers, I created a new Template:European_countries_not_in_EU for those European countries not in the EU. This need only be put on pages which have the EU footer - other european countries should probably stick with this Europe footer.

Before I change all other EU country pages (I've only changed UK and Ireland), I'm just looking to see if there's any major objections?

Zoney 21:31, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:EU countries Zoney 23:33, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Category

It's a good idea to add Category:European countries here, but then the manually added copy in each of the pages that have it should be pruned, too. --Joy [shallot] 09:31, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Unneeded polls about including a territory into Europe

The current Europe page is very good in that respect - the list of european countries. It is the best! All things are taken into account, the disputable countries have explanation-footers, so both pro- and against- people should be content. If someone says something like "It is unthinkable to include Kazakhstan" - then this person should be capable of giving an exact explanation where (and why exactly there) in Russia the Europe border is, so that we can distinguish between Kazakshtan-bordering russian asian territories and around-the-europe-border russian territories. I don't think that it is good that we take the easy path of maximum convenience - "Russia is somehow european, no one disputes that, so we declare that Europe ends SOMEWHERE in Russia and we DON'T BOTHER where EXACTLY, it DOESN'T matter". Such thinking is too single-dimensional :)

We shouldn't try and decide on the borders of Europe. That would be like deciding that Napoleon was a liberator rather than a conqueror -- that's POV, right? Various sources outside Wikipedia disagree; I think we're required to report on the disagreement. A D Monroe III 23:14, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The problem is and always will be that there is a piece of Kazakhstan that is arguably in Europe but there is absolutely no way it is a "European" country. (There are benefits to being considered part of Europe so nations tend to want in, of course, but that's not the same thing as being considered European.) Meanwhile, Cyprus arguably has no territory in the European continent but there is absolutely no way it is not a "European" country. There's no resolution of it unless you plump for geography or culture, and to do so is, of course, POV. (CheeseDreams, unsigned)

I agree with A D Monroe III, it is more a political decision to include some countries and others not, see for example Cyprus. That this discussion would occur was quite obvious and after a year it hasn't still ended and it will probably never end. The reason is that Europe is not a fixed geographical reason, many encyclopaedias try to do so, but always find themself compromising or copying it from somewhere else. Ask people what is Europe and most of them wouldn't be able to define it. On the other hand, one could say that there are many descriptions for a geographically Europe. A minor Europe and a major Europe. I remember on holidays in Sweden that people there often refer to Europe as the part south of the Scandinavian peninsula. Even politicians of the EU have large discussions of what is Europe now exactly. The main reason is, Europe is not a geographical region, but rather cultural, trying to define it in a geographical sense would be very difficult. It is not a continent as such but part of the Eurasian continent, so somewhere in the middle one would find difficulties. This whole talk page is POV, what I'm saying is also POV, and adding some countries is POV, leaving some countries out is POV. So it will be very difficult to make this page NPOV. I think it's unnecessary to create a template about Europe as a region, because this definition is not clear. There's one of the Council of Europe, who is gathering, I believe the majority of the 'European' countries.--Eigenwijze mustang 08:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cantus rv ???

Cantus, why have you reverted my edits??? It is clearly stated that for a pool to be closed there are two requierments - "minimum 15 votes" and "70% for yes or no". The 'obvious' pools about Svalbard, etc. are with only 11 votes (I voted 12th, still 3 votes needed), so they were wrongly closed! It is not fair to bend the rules in such a way. Maybe the next 100 votes will be for the opposing cause of the current "result". Please explain.Alinor 08:20, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

When you have 11 votes for support there is no way to change the outcome of the poll. Do the math. —Cantus…☎ 08:53, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

My omission. OK. But still, it is possible (tough not likely) that the 12th, 13th and 14th are opposing and the 15th and 16th voters (both oposing) vote very quickly one after another, so the result gets below 70% and then the next voters can completely reverse it.Alinor 09:50, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So, I think that it is best to leave the votes open until the rules are formally met, not mathematicaly. This (my edits) will make no harm and is more fair. Alinor 09:52, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Another point about strict following the rules (waiting until 15 people have voted - and reopening current pools with less than 15 votes) - as you can see some people have changed their vote - becouse of new information, etc. So, even when 11 votes are enough to get 70% out of 15 - maybe the 12th, 13th and/or 14th voter (these 'new voters' can hypotheticaly can vote 'against the first 11 voters') will give such arguments that convince some of the first 11 to change their vote and so - later the case can be decided in contrary to the current CLOSED decision (if 15th, 16th, etc. voters reach the reversed-70%). My point - pools with less than 15 positions are CLOSED AGAINST THE RULES. We should wait until the 15th vote before closing. I will now cast my vote in the closed sections with less than 15 votes. Later, if no one objects I may reopen them, so that we can finish them by the rules.Alinor 17:44, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Spain and Portugal

Are Spain and Portugal bicontinental? There are two small Spanish exclaves on the African coast, and Azores are considered African geographically. — Instantnood 01:45, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

(Please join the discussion at Talk:Bicontinental country#Spain and Portugal.) — Instantnood 11:31, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Armenia and Georgia

Please, see vandalism by User:Caligvla, who removed four legitimate support votes for Armenia's inclusion in Template:Europe. [21]

I also suggest us to finally close these polls on Georgia and Armenia. Majority have already supported their inclusion in Template:Europe and there is no need to protract this already protracted poll even further.--Tabib 04:46, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Yep, it's fucking stupid when Azerbaidzhan is in while Georgia and Armenia (and Kazakhstan too) are not. How's the border between Europe and Asia should be jumping to evade these countries? That would surely attract topologist's attention - Jordan curve theorem is contradicted!  Grue  10:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

European Broadcasting Union

I think the EBU article gives a good idea of what should be in Europe. The EBU is obviously EU influenced and the "Members in Europe" includes Georgia, Turkey, Armenia, Moldova and others. Hedley 15:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

A map?

Could someone, perhaps, create a map that would show where the European-Asian border is (including more than one theory as applicable) in regards to nearby countries, and then place this map here? That would certainly help a lot of people to make a more informed decision.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:51, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

There are links to maps within this page. Yes, the maps aren't that great. —Cantus…☎ 02:22, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Those are not exactly what I had in mind. My suggestion was to include just one map that would show all possible variants of the geographical border of Europe. Besides, if shown prominently on this page, it would be much more useful than well-hidden links to not-so-great maps we already have.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 02:37, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

See again here Transcontinental nation.Alinor 11:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Compromise?

OK, it's obvious that the polling mechanism here hasn't really worked. The polls hovering inconclusively beetween 30 and 70% deserve to be put out of their misery. Couldn't there by a compromise 3rd footnote, reading something like "considered by some observers to belong to Europe, by others solely to Asia." ? Doops 18:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Armenia and Georgia - 2

Isn't it about time to wrap these two up and include them in the template? As others have noted, Azerbaijan and Turkey are already in the list, so what exactly is the hold up here? SouthernComfort 3 July 2005 05:20 (UTC)

I guess it's all about economy. Turkey and azerbaijan can offer oil and developed industries. I am not familiar with Armenia but Georgia does belong to Europe since Georgian culture is absolutely European. Nancy 3 July 2006 2:07 (USA)

Neither Armenia, nor Georgia, Azerbaijan or Turkey belong to Europe. I don't understand! Is it a shame to be in Asia? -- tasc ^words_deeds 18:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Turkey was put here only because its poll was combined with Russia.--Nixer 11:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

poll taking too much time

• Look at the page Transcontinental nations for borders definitions, discussions, maps, etc.
• I mostly agree with the above two suggestions - the poll may take forever... Maybe the next time we should put a maximum lenght of 6 months and after that 50%+1vote should be sufficient for decision...
• I look at the current results in the following way: 1. if Russia and Turkey are to be included (they are voted YES already) - then the list is not 'exclusievely european', so the other states with european territory should get there - Kazakhstan (it is still in the poll) for sure (by even the mostly wrong definitions), Azerbaijan (voted YES already) and Georgia (still in the poll). 2. if Cyprus is included (voted YES already) - then Armenia (still in the poll) should be included too, becouse both countries are only culturally/historically/politically european and geographicaly belong to Asia. 3. if Azerbaijan is included (voted YES already) then Georgia (still in the poll) should be included too, becouse they are in the same group (in or out, but aways the same for these two) in all posible definitions of the border. 4. also, if Russia and Turkey are excluded (impossible now) - then Cyprus should be excluded too (and also all other debatable countries) - the list would become exclusievely european. 5. about the flag - the other continents have no flags, this flag is used by CoE/EU and they don't cover the whole continent, etc. - my personal opinion is to go without the flag (at least until all states join CoE or the EU).
• conclusion - the already achieved results (70%/30%) are enough to logicaly sort the remaining issues - it would be un-logical if the results of the remaining polls are opposite to the already closed polls - there would be contradictions, so we should take the results from the already closed polls and according to them - deal with the still open polls.Alinor 11:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Nightstallion 11:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

This poll is simply unwiki

Voting inclusion of countries in a template, by deciding which definition of Europe to take is simply unwiki and is against "neutral point of view" concept so important for Wikipedia. Polls should only be used when the decision does not concern what definition to take as sole truth, Wikipedia does not take position, because taking position is not NPOV. There is a geographical definition of Europe, and neither Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia are in. "European culturaly" is a subjective term and can be debated, and being member of "Concil of Europe" or such bodies does not amount to reject the position that all of those four countries are not part of Europe. For those reasons, it is logical that for a country to be included in a template of Europe, it should be geographically in Europe, with 50%+1 of its territory inside Europe. If the template does not do this, it reject the main notion that run Wikipedia. I can't even believe in the first place that so much people have voted without even pointing out how this poll is unwiki. What will be next? To vote wherever or not a god exist, so we shall vote for a "truth" here? Or what about a truth on which god between, Yaveh, Jeohav, Allah, God are more powerful, so that we can build a template with an order between the most powerful gods to the less powerful ones? What if, I, as a Wikipedian, adhere to the position(which, one has to admit, is supported by the majority in the Academia), that all those four countries are NOT in Europe, want to build a template about the countries of Europe, and exclude those four countries, would my POV position be rejected by another POV position(this template)??? Fadix 01:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with some things that you say, but disagree with others. Why do you place the barrier for inclusion at "50%+1" (and "1" is meaning what? - 1square inch, 1 foot, 1 milimeter, 1 kilometer, 1 thousend killometers, etc.?)?? This is too arbitrary. I think that inclusion, whatever the percentage, is good, if we place a footnote explaining that the state in question is only paritialy in europe.

50% + 1 simply means that over half of the land is in geographical Europe, this regardless of the unit used. I don't think this is arbitrary, if over half the land is in Europe, it can just be considered as in Europe. Besides, I don't think there is any countries, which will be included with a close call like 50% + 1. We can not start assuming that a country is in Europe just because a slight fraction is in Europe, it would be supporting one point of view against another, but if we do use the geographical definition, and that we include a country based on whever or not more than half the land is in Europe, we have a logical ground which could not be contradicted, because those countries that would be included will certainly be in Europe, and those opposing their inclusion will be a fringe of the population, a clear minority and their POV could be excluded because: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." ( Jimbo Wales, September 2003, on the mailing list). This is where we must stick, and this regardless of the polls result, because those polls are simply unwiki. Fadix 21:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

If we go the ">50% of the territory to lie in Europe" path there will be two obstacles: 1. Azerbaijan is a little less than 50%, so a debate will arise. 2. Russia is much less than 50%, so it will have to be excluded and you can bet that THIS will get a BIG debate. Just look the 16-vs-0 results stating YES to Russia inclusion in the list. I think that we should include ALL countries that have SOME territory in Europe (so that no one objects the list - if it has european territory - it is included). Of course with footnotes explaining that they are "paritialy located in Europe", etc. The same applies to Asia template, etc.

I don't think that Azerbaijan is just a little less than 50%, it has what is considered "European" route to Asia, as the only section of its land which could be considered as in Europe. It has neither a land justifiction or Cultural justification(cultural justification here won't say much, as Canada and Australia have culturul justification, but it won't make those nations European). Again, having part of a territory in Europe, doesn't justify taking one POV against another. See my first message. The same goes with Turkey, one of the obstacles of its inclusion in the EU is that it is not geographically neither culturally(but again, this part should be not that important) European. There are bunch of old texts, claming Armenia as being an European country in Asia, in old publications, treating Ani the ancient Armenian capital, that was called the city of a thousand and one churchs was allegedly an European city. Those are all POV, and the inclusion will be taking a POV against another, and is unwiki. It would be logical therefor to include only those countries which has over 50% of their lands, because at least then, there won't be any opposition of the inclusion. As for the opposition of the exclusion, lets just say that there is a significant portion of the population that don't believe those countries being European, so that we may consider their POV as well. The same goes with Russia, Russia over the years was not really considered as European, it was only after the fall of the Soviet Union and with the death of the Soviet threat. Lastly, and this is an important question to ask. Why was this template created? Is it really worthy? Why not, simply, delete it, and spare us all this poll thing, which is unwiki. We can't vote on the exclusion of one point of view against another. It would be better to treat those position, individually in the entry of each countries, at least then, both positions will be developped and presented clearly, and there will be no exclusion of one against the other. Fadix 14:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

You say that to consider Russia non-european is not a POV. I don't agree - they have nearly 25% of their territory in Europe - how is the ignoring of this not a POV? Turkey and Azerbaijan have territories in Europe (even if they are less than 50% for Azerbaijan and less than 5% for Turkey. Anyway Azerbaijan has more percentage of its area in Europe than Turkey - the fact that Azerbaijan's european territory is much more 'remote' and 'not-as-famous' as Turkey's and Istanbul has nothing to do with the numbers.) and you can not simply ignore the FACTS, becouse you don't like their culture, becouse they are not members of the EU or for whatever other reason. Also here is not a place to argue about cultures (as you also say). Pooling is unwiki - I agree - but sometimes it is hard to reach a compromise, and so why not try this way (pool)... It is not correct that if we follow your ">50% rule" there will be no opposition - I showed you an example - people vote in a very short time 16-vs-0 for inclusion of both Russia and Turkey, so you can bet on serious opposition, becouse your rule excludes both of these UNDISPUTABLE (as shown by the results) PARITIALY european states. The problem here is mostly territorual and so we should stick to facts and not to the vague interpretations of "sizable portion of the people" - when it is proven that the Earth is spherical we should not show the POV of people supporting the "flat-earth"-conception - it is simply untrue. Anyways, I agree that the place for this debate is on the pages of the individual countries or here. Also, the template is surely usefull for reference purposes on many pages - the problem with some 6-7 states that lie on the border is a minor detail. I don't see what don't you like in the current arrangement of things - countries that have some of their territory (even the major parts) on another continent have a note beside them and there is explanation... this way multiple POVs are accounted for.

Where I said that to consider Russia non-European is not a POV? What I said was that the position maintained by those opposing the inclusion is not only supported by a fringe of the population. The reason why Azerbaijan has land in Europe is because the land it has on Europe was more of an European route to Asia than anything else. Poll the Academia, or geographic works, how much you'll find include those nations as part of Europe? It is recognized that Russia do have a part of its land in Europe, this is how it is treated, and this can, and is probably mentioned in the entry about Russia, that's a neutral point of view, but to say that Russia is European, is not. The templates existence is just a pain in the a. because it takes position by supporting a POV against another.

As for your justification that since it was a 16-0 vote in cases of Turkey and Russia, this doesn't make much sense. Because the vote was unwiki in the first place, it is like passing a vote on wherever or not a god exist, and from the result make a judgment on the POV that should be accepted in Wikipedia. Popularity does not make something less POV. So my suggestion is to either stick with a geographical position, and based on what is generally agreed, or simply deleting the template. Fadix 17:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I concur: this poll is unwiki; this template is unwiki. Consensus is unattainable, especially by the proposal above to decide the 50-50 Kazakhstan vote administratively. I have proposed the deletion of the template, on these frounds, as well as redundancy with Category:Europe Septentrionalis 18:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Fadix. Than you people wonder why we dislike axpars such as you so much. We are European, always have been. If you people want to be a separate ethnic group than so be it. Because of your Middle Eastern heritage you're dragging the rest of us with you, not a chance. It's funny how ou didn't mentiuon Cyprus.--Eupator 22:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

What should I conclude from this statment? I assume you're an Armenian? What is so in, to be included in a template of Europe? Just answer to this question. Do someone get a prize for being included? Is it a pride to be included there? And what the "we" means? Who is this "we" that dislike people like me? And for what? For saying that Armenia is not in Europe? Just take a look at it again, Turkey, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia are to be included in a template of Europe. This isen't about my opinion, is is about if those polls and inclusions are Wiki or not. That I would want some countries to be included or not, is independent from what is Wiki. As for Cyprus, Cyprus is an Island, for this reason, I can't comment on it. How you draw borders passing through an Island. Fadix ^{(My Talk)} 23:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The fact that you're asking these questions is the problem. You have no identity. You and those like you from the Diaspora are confused products of the Genocide. This matters, our total and final reunification with the European community after 600 years living with savages under occupation and the re-enlightenment of our culture and society. Everything else is secondary, including the useless Genocide campaigns you waste your time on. Oh yeah, Ireland, Malta, Iceland and Britain are also islands. I agree that there shouldn't be a poll, because the fact that Armenia is a European country is not open to debate. If you don't consider yourself European you're not Armenian and can't be Armenian as far as i'm concerned.--Eupator 00:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

This sort of BS has no place in the talk page of an article. Consider this my last answer of the kind here. I am not European, I am a Canadian. Europe is nothing more than a term attached to a Geocultural social construct. I'm neither born in an European country, neither have passed most of my time in an European country, why should I consider myself as European? And what the hell my affiliation has anything to do here? I repeat, what I've been saying. Those polls are Unwiki, to vote on which POV to include as truth or untruth is unwiki. The only such template we might have, is when the opposition of an inclusion is a fringe minority, in which cases, it would have no place in Wikipedia, and the position could be ignored. That is all I was requesting. No one can blame me for trying to keep the intergrity of this site, and here I detected an Unwiki act. Feel free to draw a portrait of myself based on my answers here, it always help to know whom to ignore. Thank you. Fadix ^{(My Talk)} 00:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Why #Russia & Turkey?

I can certainly understand a vote that Russia is European and Turkey is not, and I see no place on this poll to express one. Septentrionalis 17:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I also think that it was better to vote for every country individualy, but anyway - the Russia&Turkey pool is closed a long time ago, so you anyway can not vote neighter on Russia, neighter on Turkey. Vote on the still open pools if you wish.

Oh, I am reasonably content with the result in this case; but it puts the legitimacy of the poll into question. Turkey may have been log-rolled into Europe on the back of Russia - or vice versa. Septentrionalis 16:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Agree. They shoulded be voted separetely - they are in different parts of Europe and it is THEORETICALY possible that the border totaly excludes one of them, but includes the other...Alinor 17:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

On a side note - I think that such list should be geographical/territorial mainly, so that both Russia and Turkey are "paritialy in Europe" and also in the list. Turkey has the smallest european territory (both as percentage and as absolute value) of all transcontinental states here, but anyway it has SOME.

Compromise revisited

Well, my suggestion above that we work for a fresh compromise was greeted by a resounding silence; but please look below at the attempt I've made, all undismayed, at a compromise template. Although Fadix (see above) is wrong to suggest that we have no business going beyond "objective" geography (our aim should be to tell the full story, even if it is messy), it is certainly true that voting up/down on each individual country hasn't worked in the best interests of NPOV and has threatened the reputation of this template. The solution is not to delete it altogether but to find some sort of compromise which will allow it to be fixed. This have I attempted below. Doops | talk 19:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC), edited 22:42

Template:Europe2 — countries in Europe
Albania | Andorra | Austria | Belarus | Belgium | Bosnia and Herzegovina | Bulgaria | Croatia | Czech Republic | Denmark | Estonia | Finland | France | Germany | Greece | Hungary | Iceland1 | Ireland | Italy | Latvia | Liechtenstein | Lithuania | Luxembourg | Macedonia | Malta | Moldova | Monaco | Netherlands | Norway | Poland | Portugal | Romania | San Marino | Serbia and Montenegro | Slovakia | Slovenia | Spain | Sweden | Switzerland | Ukraine | United Kingdom | Vatican City
Countries straddling the Europe-Asia boundary as conventionally defined: Azerbaijan | Georgia | Kazakhstan | Russia | Turkey
Countries wholly in Asia, but sometimes considered European for cultural or historical reasons: Armenia | Cyprus
Dependencies: Akrotiri and Dhekelia (Asian geographically) | Faroe Islands | Gibraltar | Guernsey | Jan Mayen | Jersey | Isle of Man | Svalbard
1. Iceland partly in North America

Going beyond objective geography is subjective, and one can not do it withoug taking position, which is a point of view. The template was excluding another point of view. On the other hand, your template is Wiki and should replace the other one. Fadix ^{(My Talk)} 23:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that we should stick to geographical definition of the border, otherwise the things get too messy.

Also, I don't see big difference between the two versions (the current one and yours). You are using slightly different layout (sub-lists instead of notes) and wording of the notes/sub-list names. The only important difference is that your version is made as if the last 3 remaining pool issues (out of totaly 14) are concluded with results "inclusive with a footnote" for Armenia and Kazakhstan and "don't use" for the Flag. I also think that these are the logical results (Kazakhstan should be included if Russia is included - sharing the same portion of the border; Armenia should be included if Cyprus is included - both are geographicaly in Asia; Continents don't have flags and the proposed flag is not assosiated with all states in the list). But I think that it is better fisrt to take a decision to abandon the remaining open pools (to close them 'logicaly, according to the results of related closed pools') and only then finish the work on the template.Alinor 17:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The two templates are different. The second one is more Wiki, it clearly separate what is considered as in Europe, and the others, it does not try to present a POV as sole truth, rejecting the other. That is why, that template, I believe should replace the other one. Fadix ^{(My Talk)} 19:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Lemme explain: I thought that perhaps splitting off the "questionable" countries rather than including them in the main list would make them less contentious. I can't, personally, fathom the perspective of the non-inclusionists (whom does it hurt to include a couple of extra names?); but whatever their reservations are, I'm hoping that they'll be assuaged by my version's greater clarity. (And as far as "waiting for the results" is concerned ‐ it's obvious that the two open polls are doomed to wait that way forever.) Doops | talk 17:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, let's see what will they (the exclusionists/oppositionist to inclusion of the transcontinental nations) say. But don't forget "choosy inclusionists" that want Russia and/or Cyprus or other in the list and the other similar states - out of the list...84.242.172.164 17:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

This template is much better than the one that is being used currently. For one thing it is not POV like the current one.--Moosh88 06:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

To voters against inclusion of both Cyprus and Armenia

I would suggest to people that voted against both Cyprus and Armenia (such that rightfully say: "geographycaly asian" for both) and to people that voted against Armenia only (after the Cyprus pool was closed) on the same grounds - to change their Armenia vote to "include (with footnote '2' of course)", becouse Cyprus is already included and so if Armenia is excluded the template will be clearly POV-ed and in conflict with itself. This way maybe one more pool will be closed soon.Alinor 17:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Also, as I see some voted 'opposing' to Armenia, but say: "exclude; or eventualy include if with a footnote" (maybe there are such votes in the Kazakhstan case too). Maybe they have voted before the footnotes-pool was closed. Now we have footnotes, so maybe they will want to change their vote to "include" too, becouse the condition they stipulated is satisfied.Alinor 16:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The footnote satisfies me. The mainstream geographical boundary of Europe changes according to socio-economic and political trends, both Cyprus and Armenia are ethnically, culturally and historically European. Same can be said of Georgia to a lesser extent. Azerbaijan, Turkey and Kazakhstan are the exact opposite of Cyprus and Armenia, having nothing to do with Europe culturally, historically or ethnically but they have territories in the current mainstream definition of Europe.--Eupator 18:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

This is neither here nor there, but I have to say that Turkey at least does have quite a lot to do with Europe culturally, historically, and ethnically (especially historically; the Ottoman Empire was reckoned one of the major European players in the 19th century). Doops | talk 05:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The region known as Anatolia with its native inhabitants was culturally, ethnically and linguistically European up until the day when Turkic hordes invaded from their steppes in Altai. It ends with Turks. I do recognize that the overwhelming majority of Turks have very little do with the original Turks from Central Asia and are mostly Turkicized descendants of the natives (except some Turanids: Asian/Caucasian mix) but that doesn't change the fact that they see themselves as Turks; hence, they don't behave or think like we do. The Ottoman Empire was not part of Europe it was the archenemy of Europe and Western civilization. --Eupator 13:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Good grief. Doops | talk 17:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

" Tomer ^TALK 18:09, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Iceland

If Kazakstan is excluded because of its questionable existence in the continent of Europe, while Cyprus is included with a proviso, why is Iceland wholly included in Europe? It's in the middle of the ocean, not close to any part of the European landmass, it stradles two tectonic plates, and the crust beneath it is oceanic crust, not continental. By the crustal view, it's not part of any continent. By the plate view, it's connected to North America as much as Europe, and should have a proviso attached. 132.205.94.174 22:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

No problem with that, I'm in favour. Nightstallion 07:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, maybe it should be 'pooled' too.

And also Greenland - its situation is similar to Cyprus/Akthiori&Dhekila - culturaly/historicaly Denmark-ish (so - european) - it's a dependency and also member of the Council of Europe (as part of Denmark), but outside the EU. Maybe it should be added under dependencies with a note "Geographicaly North American, but considered European for cultural and historical reasons". I think that these two pools will be finished fast (they are not so controversial as Armenia).62.204.151.1 19:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Is it actually considered as part of Europe, and if so, are there any sources for this? -- Joolz 19:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Greenland? Mh, good call whether it's actually considered part of Europe. One could argue that it's a fortiori a member of the Council of Europe since Denmark is, but with notable independence efforts (with likely results sometime before 2010) I'm not quite sure... It most certainly is not European culturally, and absolutely not geographically. Maybe if we make the footnote "geographically and culturally North American, but considered European by some for historical reasons"? Nightstallion 19:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

It's not up for us to decide whether it's European or not, is there anyone notable which actually considers it so? I don't think being a dependency of a European country makes the dependency eligable for the infobox either (if we're using that as a criteria) - if so the Pitcairn Islands should go in too -- Joolz 00:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

While we're at it, why not add all the members of the British Commonwealth and la Communauté Française? Tomer ^TALK 03:07, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Greenland? Greenland is North American by culture (Inuit culture), and North American by continent 132.205.44.43 19:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

A lot discussion on continental boundries and the continental status of different nations has taken place around the transcontinental nation page. You could consult that or contribute to that discussion. Personally I think it is imposible to find absolute continental boundaries as the whole notion of a continent is a human construct. Gazzapedia 18:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the note to say Iceland is 'partly in North America' is correct. It is partly on the North American plate, but that's not at all the same thing. I doubt you'd find a single person in Reykjavík who thinks their city is in North America. If anyone can find a reputable source which agrees with the footnote, then it should be cited - otherwise, I think the note should be removed. Worldtraveller 22:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Neither is it in Europe, though it is partly on the Eurasian plate. It's in the middle of the Ocean (ever more so than the British Isles, whose people consider themselves apart from Europe). It's only culturally European, geographically now... 132.205.44.43 19:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'd contend that it is in Europe, because Europe is not purely a geographically-defined entity but a cultural one as well. No-one from Iceland would say they live in North America. Incidentally, many British people consider themselves apart from Europe in the sense of the European Union, but I don't think you'd find many of us who claimed not to be part of the continent. Worldtraveller 14:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

There are notes on other countries that are geographically not Europe but are one the template, so Iceland seems to be just like those. If North America is disagreeable because it's rather far from the continental shelf, then the same objection with being geographically part of Europe would apply, and it would still have a note, saying that it's only culturally part of Europe, and not geographically there at all. 132.205.44.43 19:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe that Iceland is a part of Europe and is considered by all reasonable authorities to be part of Europe. Unless there is a source to back the suggestion that it's part North American, it shouldn't really be stated as such in the article. Worldtraveller 23:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Since when have tectonic plates been the standard defining continents? If that were the case then Arabia and India would be continents on their own and the north of Japan would belong to North America etc etc. Stop imposing a non-existant "geographical" definition of Europe, Wikipedia is meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive. --Bjarki 23:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Here's my two cents/pennies: Iceland is solidly European, culturally and politically, and is geographically partly European. Greenland is partly European in the political and cultural sense, whereas Kazakhstan is partly European in all three senses, including the cultural sense. //Big Adamsky 13:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

TFD Nomination July 2005

Template nominated for deletion on July 19; result of discussion/vote was to Keep. See the relevant entry on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/July 2005. RedWolf 06:02, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Dependent territories / special territories

There's currently a discussion at template talk:East Asia over whether the official name of territory, namely special administrative region, and which sovereign State the territories listed belong to, have to be specified in the {{East Asia}} template. Please feel free to join the discussion and express your opinion. — Instantnood 11:48, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Åland

Why is Åland not included in the template? It is listed on the list of countries in the same manner as Svalbard. It may or may not be a dependency, but it is usually listed alongside with sovereign States as other dependent territories do. — Instantnood 14:11, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

According to the vote (see above) and the page itself, it's not a dependency but an autonomus region of Finland. -- Joolz 19:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The vote above says it's not a dependency, but that's not a reason not to include it. Why can't it be included in the box as a special territory or whatever name it suits? — Instantnood 21:03, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

From my reading of the vote they chose not to include it because it's part of Finland. -- Joolz 21:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Jan Mayen and Svalbard are part of Norway too. Faroe Islands and Greenland are part of the Kingdom of Denmark. Whether or not is it part of a sovereign State is not quite relevant. — Instantnood 07:33, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

There must be a difference from being a dependent territory (Greenland et al.) and an autonomous region (Åland) -- Joolz 09:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

A dependent territory may or may not be part of the soveregin state. Even if it is not a dependent territory, is there any problem to list it in the box? It can be listed not together with other dependent territories. — Instantnood 09:43, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

There was a vote that concluded with Åland being excluded, to put it back in you must seek consensus for the change. This probably entails holding another poll. -- Joolz 16:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

It was voted out because people don't think it's a dependency. There is no discussion on whether non-dependency, assuming it is not one, should or should not be excluded. — Instantnood 18:03, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

If it is a dependency, it gets listed as one. If it is not, and considered a part of the mother country's core, then it is a subnational entity and not included. I suppose by this, you are asking for a discussion on whether to include subnational entities in the list? I doubt you are going to get a very positive answer.--Huaiwei 21:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

In what way is Åland is part of Finland's "core"? — Instantnood 08:58, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Åland due to its special international position should be included in the list. It has more autonomy than Svalbard or Jan Mayen Electionworld 22:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I would disagree, however. Level of autonomy is not a deciding factor, and nor is it a sole criterion in deciding if an entity is a dependency or a subnational entity.--Huaiwei 22:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes level of autonomy is not a factor to decide whether or not a territory is a dependency. Some dependencies enjoy no or little autonomy. Nevertheless dependency status is not the only criterium for listing. — Instantnood 08:58, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Regions and countries

Theathenae gave this reason for not using simply "Macedonia" in the template:

"Macedonia is a region spanning several countries, not a single country."

This is also the case of "Moldova", most of the historical region of Moldova is outside the Republic of Moldova. Should we write "Republic of Moldova" instead of simply Moldova or do we have double standards ? :-) bogdan | ^Talk 20:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the historical region is called Moldavia in English, and Moldova's name is not a matter of international dispute. If you want to talk double standards, explain why you say Moldova instead of Moldavia but insist on calling the FYROM Macedonia instead of Makedonija. In any case, Macedonia is an entirely separate article from FYROM.--Theathenae 20:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Wisest Solution Europe Asia Topography

Topography Technology Solves Europe Asia Border Dispute

Many have allowed sentiment and personal bias to draw the Geographical border between Europe and Asia. There are many ways of defining the border. 1) Historically 2) Present Cultural Prevalence 3) DNA (which has not been perfected) & 4) Geographical Consensus.

In this discussion we are discussing the Geographical border.

When discussing geography one does not use the words “significant” or “insignificant”. Any piece of land is significant and many a nation has warred over a simple plot of land, and every State in the US is significant.

We can draw on many ideas as to the Europe Asia Geographical Border but the majority of Geographers fixed the Eastern and South Eastern borders as the Ural Mountains & River…..and the Caucasus. And of those Geographers is an established consensus that the Peaks of the Greater Caucasus marks the border.

The Caucasus are divided into Greater and Lesser portions. The Greater Caucasus runs horizontally and generally between Georgia and Russia…..and also Azerbaijan and Russia. I use the word “Generally” just as away to generalize ourselves with the area….the exact points can be found using Topographical Technology Programs.

Topographical Technology digitally maps the entire Greater Caucasus System into a 3 dimensional image that includes exact data on elevation. Since the Greater Caucasus System is an Unbroken chain mountain that runs between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea the mapping is extremely EXACT.

The program then draws a continuous line on the highest summits across the Entire Mountain Chain. Hence, you know the highest line of demarcation between Europe and Asia as agreed by the great majority of geographers. The Same is done for the Ural Mountains.

Now for Data Collecting and Percentages.

Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkey, Georgia & Azerbaijan would have listed the amount of land in Europe and in Asia. Then Each Nation would be assigned an exact Percent Number of the total land is in Europe. For example Turkey has around 3 % of its land in Europe.

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATION. Russia has more land in Europe then the other nations mentioned here, Followed by Kazakhstan, Followed by Turkey, Followed by Azerbaijan, Followed by Georgia. The order may differ in regards to percent of total land in Europe. Armenia may be argued into Europe by using a Cultural or Historical method yet not by using a Geographical Method with the Greater Caucasus as the demarcation point. Remember, the Greater Caucasus is one of the worlds most perfect examples of a watershed, rigid and definitive, an ideal border

Thank you,

Arabian

Note: The Greater Caucasus is a horizontal unbroken chain that slightly dips down into Azerbaijan. That is why Azerbaijan has more land in Europe then Georgia. Sentimentalists have tried to include the majority of Georgia's land into Europe, yet this is not a common view. The common most agreed upon view by geographers is that the border between Asia and Europe is very near Georgia's northern border, also Azerbaijans northern border, yet because of the way the Greater Caucasus dips south into Azerbaijan near the Caspian, Azerbaijan ends up with more land in Europe then Georgia. Georgia may have less than 1% of its land in Europe, and it wouldn't be astonishing to find it has less then 0.5%.

EEA?

There appear to be some misunderstanding about what the European Economic Area is regarding the last edit. EEA = EU + EFTA - Switzerland. None of those countries below the header "Members of the European Economic Area (EEE)" belongs to it. --Bjarki 21:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

what is the deal with this new footer?

What is the deal with this new footer for countries of europe? Not only are these maps and geographical area subjective, but many countries and territories are left out. Where is San Marino? Malta? Vatican City? Some of these grouping to not even make much sense. The simple list before, with explanations that some countries like russia and turkey had terriory in asia as well, and and listing of places like the faroe island and gibraltor, made so much more sense. i think this new one is a shame, and might be taken as offensive, and is far less informative.--sterms 19:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

What we can read in Europe article: Sub-divisions of Europe are highly arbitrary, as little consensus exists on the various definitions that are proposed. No strict geographical conventions exist; the map below represents, however, the most widespread idea of what countries constitute the various regions of the continent. Often the various regions include different countries than those on the map. Nothing so arbitrary should be used in template. And it is too big now, and too overcrowded with links to notes. --Monkbel 20:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree and have reverted to the old version. These templates are being phased out in favour of the international ties footers anyway. - SimonP 20:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, let's keep the A-Z version. -- User:Docu

===>See Africa I rearranged the information on all of the continent footers because of the format of Africa's - it looks more professional and appealing than the current one, plus it includes more information on a marginally larger area. Justin (koavf) 14:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Israel

I'm surprised there isn't a poll for Israel. If we should include countries (such as Armenia) that are only in some contexts considered part of Europe, Israel must be included as well. The Israeli Olympic Committee is a member of the European Olympic Committees [22] and so the country participates in European Championships in most sports. It's also in the Eurovision Song Contest since I don't know when. -- Jao 16:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't think sport would be a very relevant criterion. Australia is going to be a member of the Asia Football Conferderation, and play in the Asian Cup. Kazahkstan plays in the European Championships, but the East Asian Games too. Did I mention Israel once played the World Cup qualifiers with countries in Oceania, and South America and Africa? — Instantnood 16:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Clutter

I've removed the clutter of the footnotes - they don't really add much, and tend to be confusing anyway, jguk 12:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

As I've said to Instantnood, I consider the use of the term "Dependency" to be POV and offensive in the Scandinavian context (see e.g. my talk page). Changed accordingly. --Valentinian 09:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I shan't revert "other territories", but I will note that we can't just go changing things willy-nilly just because someone has decided to take objection to a word that is well-used and well-understood. There's nothing remotely offensive about the word "dependency", which just defines a political state, and certainly nothing POV about it - after all, it's a term everyone uses! jguk 10:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

You have a rather interesting view on democracy. Has Jimbo granted you the right to speak for all wikipedians? As far as I know, all wikipedians are entitled to have their own opinions and argue accordingly. Or did I miss an official change in Wiki policy?

In some countries your statement would be true, not in Denmark or Finland. That qualifies for POV. Besides, the word is simply incorrect in the Scandinavian examples. The constitutional arrangements are as follows: Jan Mayen: an integral part of Norway, it's just located far from the mainland; Svalbard: Integral part of Norway, no home rule; Åland: Integral part of Finland w/ home rule; Greenland & the Faroe Islands: Integral parts of Denmark w/ internal home rule. The Constitution of Denmark does not only not mention home rule, it states that the constitution applies to all Danish territories (§1). In Danish legal tradition, that was the dinstinction between "Denmark proper" and a colony, since the consitution fid not apply in the former colonies. Norway does in fact have a few dependencies, but they're located on the southern hemisphere; territories on the the northern hemisphere are annexed to Norway proper. Same case regarding Åland vs. Finland, and Greenland & the Faroe Islands vs. Denmark. Any Scandinavian can tell you that, and other Scandinavian Wikipedians have drawn the same conclusion. Please see the talk pages of e.g. Faroe Islands, and Svalbard. In my part of the world, this issue is highly controversial and anyone using a term like e.g. "dependency" or what-ever in public debate is seen as an advocate for a return to colonialism. So whenever a politician in Denmark refers to the North Atlantic islands as anything else than fully on the same level as "Southern" Denmark, there's a public outcry in both areas. I - for one - respects my fellow countrymen and resent others offend them. But if you prefer, just kill the entire line. I've never understood the point of it anyway. --Valentinian 22:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Category redux

Currently, the template carries Category:European countries with it. This is all well and good, except that it really makes a mess of subcategorization. Many (possibly even most) of the countries listed have their own subcategories (i.e., Category:Slovakia is a subcat of Category:European countries), so placing all of these articles within the parent category is redundant and a bit messy. – Seancdaug 02:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It's generally accepted that the article (e.g. Slovakia) may be in the one it defines (e.g. Category:Slovakia) and its parent category (e.g. Category:European countries) (see Wikipedia:Categorization). Thus I'm restoring Category:European countries (see previous debate about its addition). Additional inclusion in Category:Europe is probably not needed though. -- User:Docu

I'd be curious to hear what section of the Wikipedia:Categorization page you're referring to. The creating subcategories section seems to say exactly the opposite with regards to "vertical" categorization, and the revisions currently under discussion are even more explicit. Speaking as a librarian/cataloger, I would also add that there is little practical value to having subcategories if they're not used as subcategories. We already have a flat list of European countries (this template, no less), so there's no reason that we need to duplicate that list in our categorization system, particularly when it adds to the administrative overhead (as User:Netoholic attests to below) and makes it that much more difficult to achieve consistency across articles. – Seancdaug 09:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Another thought occurred to me (and I referred to it on a note I left at Category talk:European countries): is there any reason not to drop this template in at the top of Category:European countries? While there is certainly some value to having a flat listing of European countries accessible from the main category page, I still am inclined to feel that forcing each individual article into both its parent category and its subcategory is bad practice, especially when there's not really any reason to do so (the oft-cited example of George W. Bush, for instance, is a special case because he's one of only a handful of U.S. presidents to have his own category, so it makes sense to list him both there and in the parent category; but, AFAICT, just about every European country linked on this this template has its own subcategory). Actually putting the template on the category page would keep that flat listing, but not present of the category maintenance problems auto-including Category:European countries does. – Seancdaug 10:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Using templates to populate categories is a bad practice. Anyone who does a lot of category maintenance will agree. -- Netoholic @ 07:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Abkhazia

Is a part of Europe! I don't understand why do you people keep removing it!--tasc 19:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Inserting Abkhazia, at least without a footnote explaining its circumstances, is POV. Also, if we mention Abkhazia, we'll have to mention South Ossetia, Transnistria and all the other de facto states which are officially recognised by all other EU countries (and every other country on earth) as part of another country already mentioned. --Latinus 19:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't see any notes explaining gibraltar status for example. Why note is needed? Is it not enough that it belongs to other teritories section? Transnistria is good idea, btw. --tasc 19:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the definition of what is included in that section, it links to List of dependent territories. Gibraltar is a dependent territory, Abkhazia, Transnistria et al are de facto states that are internationally recognised as being part other European states. Create a seperate section for them if you must, but stop implying that there is a legitimate country in Europe that goes under the name Abkhazia, or worse, a dependent territory. --Latinus 19:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Cyprus, Akrotiri and Dhekelia, and the TRNC

Aren't these countries or territories geographically in Asia? I would place the footnote mark next to them, but I think it's a little too controversial to do arbitrarily. --Latinus 21:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

While Cyprus is reckoned to be a transcontinental territory, the island and constituents are approximate to the Asian mainland (with more than abundant citations of this) and, thus, appropriate to footnote as proposed. (Also, harking of UN geographic categorisations, Cyprus is included in Western Asia.) Take a glance at the table of Asian territories (and related note) for possible wording. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)