Talk:Boundaries between continents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Geography (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Neutrality[edit]

So, who's disputing the neutrality of what in this article? If nobody replies within a couple weeks I'll removed the dispute tag. Orcoteuthis (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I am here by accident and it was not me who put the neutrality tag. But I see the article is by no means neutral and exhaustive as concerns the Europe-Asia borders. Have a look at http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granica_Europa-Azja (in Polish) to see a map that better explains the problem. Pomimo (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Make your case in English or don't bother. Orcoteuthis (talk) 10:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
It's not that hard to get the gist from Google's automatic translation. It lacks sources, but certainly suggests that viewpoints are more diverse than the the English article implies. -- Avenue (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Transcontinental city/cities[edit]

I changed the inaccurate statement claiming that Istanbul was effectively the only transcontinental city in the world, to say simply that Istanbul is a transcontinental city. There are others, as the link showed. 86.9.201.247 (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Map[edit]

The map doesn't cite any reference for the boundary it plots. It would actually be nice to show the geographic features that determine the line, rather than just political boundaries. -- Beland (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Put the definitions there. But why when I click the map, the line K desapears? Anyone? Zé Carioca (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I have the opposite problem, K doesn't show on the article, only when I click. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
That's at least funny. If anyone know how to repair this problems, we appreciate.Zé Carioca (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
By the way, when I open this article with Internet Explorer, K shows at the article and when I click on the file too. But... when I click on the file the history of the file and the description are missing. This file is really a mistery. Tried to fix the error, but it didn't work out.Zé Carioca (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Think the problem is solved. Zé Carioca (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

What about Africa/Asia[edit]

The boundary between Asia and Africa is not discussed. A glaring ommission. For example is Sinai Africa or Asia? --Gramscis cousin (talk) 11:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I though there was no doubt that it is Asia. Do you have opposing references. Tomeasy T C 11:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the article says quite a lot about it:
"The natural geographical boundaries of Africa are the Mediterranean Sea, the Red Sea, and the Gulf of Aden. The boundary between Africa and Asia is usually from the Gulf of Suez, or less frequently, from the Gulf of Aqaba. On purely geological grounds, the boundary could be drawn along the fault-line into the Jordan River valley (which would make Israel, Lebanon, and a small part of Syria part of Africa.)
The usual line today is at the Isthmus of Suez along the path of the Suez Canal. This makes the Sinai Peninsula geographically Asian, and Egypt a transcontinental country. A map of the recognized boundary between the two continents may be viewed here. Nevertheless Egypt is commonly referred to as an African state, because most of its population and territory are there. Geopolitically, Egypt is sometimes regarded as an Asian state, and it is usually considered part of the transcontinental geopolitical region of the Middle East."
You may also be interested in this List_of_countries_spanning_more_than_one_continent#Africa_and_Asia. Tomeasy T C 12:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest a clearer statement that Europe and Asia are Not really separate continents, although they have traditionally been treated as such. This is so obvious that it may seem silly even to point it out. One could even argue that Africa is part of the same "World Island," as it is connected with the rest by Sinai (and nearly connected at Gibralter), while the Red Sea is a result of a geologically recent Rift (I believe Ali Mazrui pointed this out). However, narrow isthmuses such as Sinai (and Panama) make treatment of the two Americas and of Eurasia and Africa as separate continents at least reasonable, if not technically correct. On "Europe and Asia,Eleanor1944 (talk) 02:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)" see Toynbee's Study of History. To say that Europe and Asia are separate continents is no less untrue than to say that the earth is flat.Eleanor1944 (talk) 02:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Other cultural definitions[edit]

My wife, educated in Japan, was taught that there were six continents. She finds the concept of Europe being separate from Asia to be a little Euro-centric (similar to calling India - relatively similarly sized to Europe and possessor of its own continental plate - a "subcontinent"). While my wife is not a valid citation reference I think it would be interesting for people who grew up in non-Western cultures to add their own definitions. As an Australian, I am often bemused by the traditional Western viewpoint that there are 5 continents (not including Oceania and Antarctica - hence the five rings and colours of the Olympic movement.) 80.4.202.8 (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You're mistaken, Oceania is represented in the Olympic rings. Antarctica is omitted and North and South America are counted as one continent (which is common in some places around the world). Also, in the US at least, schools usually teach that their are 7 continents. --Boznia 10:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
That's very interesting, thanks! I've been wrong for all these years... must say I'm very surprised some cultures consider the Americas (separated by a narrow isthmus) is one continent, while Eurasia (separated by imagination, pretty much) is considered two! 80.4.202.8 (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Even to those brought up to view them as two continents, the names "North America" and "South America" suggest that someone originally thought them to be two parts of a common entity named "America". That thinking is alive and well in many parts of continental Europe. Anorak2 (talk) 09:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Americas[edit]

Is the information about the caribbean plate really necessary in this article? It was originally added as part of a justification of Central America as a continent [1]. Now that information has been questioned and removed, is there any reason for it to still be on an article about the borders between the continents? Areas covered by that plate are considered to be part of North America. Note though, I have no objection about the map being placed there. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

FALSE. I shouldn't be talking to a sockpuppet (soon to be discovered thanks to CheckUser tool). I just want to clarify that the "user" who introduced the deliberately false and ridiculous idea of Central America being a continent well it WAS YOU [2].
Citing your own edit summary for that edit:
Not sure if the IP addition belongs, but I reworded it.
And yeah, you did reword it. You wrote that Central America was a contient. That's why it was corrected, deleted and a map added. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 16:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
No, not false. Notice my comment saying I wasn't sure if it belonged. And that makes me a sockpuppet how? I assure you I'm not. I just tried to clarify the previous addition. Thank you for WP:AGF, appreciated. At any rate, what is the point of the information there about the caribbean now? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes I rewrote what had been rewritten badly...classic copyedit. Your problem with it is what? And why do you complain about it and then leave part of it in now? I must confess I'm terribly confused. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Americas (renew)[edit]

I will start again the discussion, because it looks like the above is too personal. Here in Brazil is very common to here about America as one continent or three (South America, Central America and North America, the later being just Canada, US, Mexico and the islands of Greenland, Saint-Pierre et Miquelon e Bermudas - all the Caribbean is considered Central America). The definition of just two Americas is rare. See here: http://www.webbusca.com.br/atlas/ (it's in Portuguese, but not dificult to understand) So, I think it is a relevant information to at least cite that in some cultures this is teached, eventhough the limits of the "continent" is purely political.Zé Carioca (talk) 20:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

In Argentina, there's the same tendency. América as a single continent, and its subdivisions North, Central, and South Amnerica (sometimes separating the Caribbean from Central America). Anyway, there's not the idea of "three continents" (neither the idea of "two continents"), but of "three subcontinents". --IANVS (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it really makes sense (and when a Brazilian and an Angentine agree, it is problably very clear). But the question is: doesn't it worth a note? Thanks and sorry for the joke. Viva Argentina, nuestros hermanos latino-americanos.Zé Carioca (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
"Other common divisions exist, such as between Latin America and Anglo America or even Central America, however these are not considered to be continents, but regions within them."
As it is important in South America, I think this simple edit solve the problem. Regards.Gvogas (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I guess that's fine. But I would stress that the Central America division is drawn as opposite to North and South America, not as a cultural divide, as in Anglo/Latin. --IANVS (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Would be nice, just be careful not to making it confusion. Cause in this section we would talk that Central, South and North America "are not considered to be continents", and after that we would state that South and North America are continents.Zé Carioca (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Other common divisions exist, such as between Latin America and Anglo America or even Central America aside from South America and North America, however these are not considered to be continents, but regions within them. Think it's fine.Zé Carioca (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Europe and Asia[edit]

I rewrote the information about Miles Clark trip. It is relevant (as it was called a continental circumnavigation), well referenced, and I think now is more neutral. Zé Carioca (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It's fine for me.Gvogas (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


Can anyone explain why well referenced and most widely spread version of herodotes was removed from Europe and Asia border section? I have not been here for a long time and now will take too much to identify the user. ALSO, I asked 1000 times to put references to Kuma-Manych Depression definition. Noone appeared. Please, be so nice to provide sources for your claims. |\| ! |{ () (talk) 11:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Turkey, historically European states[edit]

One aspect is missing, history: In the early modern period Turkey was seen as one of the major European powers. And modern Turkey was explicitely modeled after European ideas of state and nation. Going further back in history is pointless, but just for the record: The Byzantine Empire was European. And the western coast of turkey was part of ancient Greece.

Also the most prominent border between Europe and Near East is not the Sea of Marmara, but the Anatolian highland or the Taurus. Geologically Turkey is part of western Eurasia; and while the border between eastern and western Eurasia with Ural is markedly to the east, the Sea of Marmara is extremely to the west. Also Turkey is only marginally connected to the eastern part of Eurasia.

Politically, economically and socially Turkey respectively western Turkey always have been part of Europe, the only difference being main religion. And while the Ural and The Taurus have dividing quality, the Sea of Marmara has none.

I wonder what pervasiveness this Turkey-not-part-of-Europe really has. I encountered it only when EU membership of Turkey became an issue. But maybe I only played to much strategic board games like Diplomacy.

-- Tomdo08 (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You're totally right. Everyone who has a little education in geography and geopolitics know this. Turkey in many aspects is an European country. I invite you to add the requiered information to the article. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 21:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with your argument, but I don't see where in the article Turkey is said not to be Europe. It is stressed that some geographical definitions consider the Sea of Marmara as being a border between Europe and Asia and on the session Politically European states the Turkey-Europe relations are well marked.
In other words: if you think that it can be more clear than that, go ahead and change it, because the Turkey as European is an important point of view. Just try to preserve others point of view. As it was discussed before and included on the top of the article: Note that this is an extensive list of borders definitions, and any presented border might not necessarily be the most accepted in the countries that it affects (most countries prefer to use political criteria). RegardsGvogas (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

discussion who controls which territories is completely off topic here. Of course France and Britain control overseas territories. That just makes them overseas territories of European countries, it doesn't place them in Europe. Just like Greek states in Asia Minor were simply Greek states in Asia, Roman Africa was Roman territory in Africa, Sicily and Lisbon were Punic territories in Europe, the Balkans was an Ottoman territory in Europe, etc. Nothing of this has any bearing on the article topic. --dab (𒁳) 11:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Wrong title[edit]

This should be called "Boundaries of the continents"Eregli bob (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain your assertion? Tomeasy T C 12:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Our border page seems to focus on political/administrative boundaries only. But the word is normally used in many others ways. Same with "boundary". I can't really see whether one would be better than the other in this case. On the other hand, the text of the article seems to use "boundary" much more than "border". Pfly (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's just check out common usage. google books gives me:

  • 3,790 hits for "boundary between Europe and Asia"
  • 716 hits for "border between Europe and Asia"

So yes, Eregli bob is right, the WP:UCN title should be "continental boundaries" or "boundaries between continents" (btw. ""boundaries between continents" is also about twice as frequent as ""boundaries between the continents"). I presume this is a basic case of checking most common usage, and since the case turns out to be clear-cut, I'm just making the move. If I am missing something important here, you can still just ask me to move it back, no need to make a big deal out of it. --dab (𒁳) 11:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

History of the Europe-Asia boundary[edit]

So I have collected information from historical maps, and it seems that at least in the west, the Caucasus, Ural River, Urals boundary was standard since around 1860. During the 18th and early 19th century, all sorts of variants were in use, and a discussion on "controversies" about the boundary probably belong entirely to the period of 1800-1860. A notable exception seems to be this 1914 map printed in the USA for The New Student's Reference Work: it shows the Urals boundary, but uses the Don instead of the Caucasus, placing Stavropol in Asia. This seems to be the "Russian convention", and it is possible that in Russia, this remained the standard definition during the 20th century, and perhaps even today, but we lack references for this. So far, the latest known example of this definition is the 1914 map I mentioned.

The difference this would make for transcontinental countries is, of course, that Azerbaijan would not be transcontinental. I am not sure about Georgia even if the southern boundary is used: Georgia is described as transcontinental all over Wikipedia, but actually Georgia has hardly any territory north of the Caucasus watershed, so even if the southern boundary is used, "European Georgia" will at best be some uninhabited glaciers. From what I can make out, the Russian-Georgian border seems to follow the watershed exactly west of Mt. Kazbek (actually passing south of the watershed near the Black Sea). North of the watershed are possibly just Kazbegi District (pop. 5,000) and the village of Shatili. We would need better sources on this. It won't do to squint at the watershed on google maps, of course. "European Georgia" would thus house just about 0.2% of Georgians. This makes the "transcontinental" thing a bit silly.

The convention of following the Don and then the Volga before cutting to the Urals, which survived into the 19th century, would also place Kazakhstan into Asia entirely (and arguably make Volgograd a transcontinental city), but it does not appear that this convention has survived into the 20th century anywhere. --dab (𒁳) 10:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I tried to research this as best I could. Against the considerable opposition, I might add, by some people on commons who seem to think encyclopedia articles are written by just getting some fixed idea into your head and then reverting everyone else with extreme prejudice. I realize both the Kuma-Manych and the Caucasus crest boundaries have been in use in the 20th century, so it is really futile to insist one of them is "correct", but this user for some reason wants to stick with Herodotus, 450 BC, an author who was just barely aware of the Don and not of the Volga, and whose convention was obsolete by 300 BC. This is not pushing one of several possible opinions beyond its WP:DUE, it's simply bizarre behaviour by people who would be better off reading instead of editing an encyclopedia. --dab (𒁳) 11:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Cleaning up the article[edit]

I really liked the work made on the article, so I just added again some information that was well sourced or at least relevant to it - like that there are other possible borders for Europe and Asia, such as the UN's. Congratulations to who worked here. Zé Carioca (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The addition about Russian administrative divisions that clearly distinguish between Europe and Asia is original research, at least until you provide solid evidence. I have put a fact tag on it for now, and will remove this part if there are now sources for these claims.
Personally, I was thinking for long that such an administrative distinction should exist in Russia. However, when researching this fact I found nothing, and an expert on the Russia article as well as Russian citizen told me that it simply does not exist.
Thanks in advance, if you can surprise me with good references for your claim. Then, I will happily leave this paragraph in. Tomeasy T C 08:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I made a quick search, but I really didn't found it. I made a revision between the article now and before the work of cleaning up, and put back some information that was referenced or relevant (like Hawaii - relevant - and Miles Clark - well referenced). The Russian administrative issue might have been a mistake. If no one appears with reference, feel free to exclude it. Regards. Zé Carioca (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I remove Russian administrative bit. If you should ever find evidence this, please bring it up here. However, if you do not have evidence and just think of things in a certain way, be more careful and do not just put such content on the main page. The Wikipedia projects aims at publishing verifiable knowledge, and not our opinions or what we believe is common sense. Tomeasy T C 20:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. As I told before, it was a mistake while I reintroduced verifiable knowledge that was deleted for no reason. Thank you for correcting it.Zé Carioca (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. thanks for your contributions. Tomeasy T C 21:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Big Soviet Encyclopedia[edit]

What exactly do you mean by "identification of the info"? There was a link in the edit. If you don't read Russian, translate.google.com should suffice to confirm the validity of the statement. Here is a different copy of the same article stating that the boundary was "most commonly" drawn along Kuma-Manych depression in the Soviet Union: http://slovari.yandex.ru/~%D0%BA%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%B8/%D0%91%D0%A1%D0%AD/%D0%95%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B0%20%28%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C%20%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B0%29/ --Itinerant1 (talk) 11:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a description of what the source actually says. I don't read Russian, and I don't trust google to handle subtleties. When was the boundary drawn at Kuma-Manych? From what point was this standard convention? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
The encyclopedia does not say. All it says that the boundary is most commonly drawn that way. The idea that the boundary could be drawn along Caucasus watershed is not mentioned. It also says that the depression (among some other geographical features of the continent) was studied by some of the Russian geographical expeditions in 1768—82, and names explorers who were involved. The article on "Asia" essentially repeats the statement and adds that "for the purposes of statistical and economical calculations within USSR, the boundary is drawn along administrative boundaries of republics and regions ... along northern borders of Stavropol Krai and Krasnodar Krai" (which would move the boundary up to 50 km to the south, but still leave Caucasus in Asia in its entirety.)
I have also found an [article] on "Europe" in Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary, published in the Russian Empire in 1906, which states unequivocally, "between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea, the boundary is drawn along the Manych depression."
This is an online version of a Russian-language geography textbook dated 1998, and, likewise, it states that the boundary is drawn along Ural mountains, river Emba, north coast of the Caspian Sea, and then Manych depression. --Itinerant1 (talk) 06:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Useful. If you could just add in that info along with the dates of publication I think that'd be the most useful solution. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Added. There seems to be a lot of misinformation on the subject in Wikipedia, not just in this article. Many articles credit Strahlenberg with drawing a boundary that is essentially identical to the Soviet convention (without citing any sources). I can't find any reliable sources confirming this, and it seems to be improbable. He did draw a good map of Russia, but it's not clear where he drew the boundary between continents. I've replaced the info with quotes from Russian language sources which appear more credible to me. Someone has to go to the primary source (or at least to find some credible secondary sources) to make sure we understand what it was that he proposed. --Itinerant1 (talk) 07:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Greenland[edit]

I am surprised to read that the boundary between Europe and North-America is "usually" drawn between Greenland and Iceland. Yes, I am aware that geologically Greenland may be considered part of North-America, but culturally it is usually associated with Europe (see the Wikipedia article on Greenland!) Rbakels (talk) 10:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussing continents as bodies of culture is far more abstract, and much more uncommon than discussing in terms of geography (which is also very imperfect). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I am from transcontinental Turkey: For Grandmaster[edit]

Sorry, the message was not meant for you; it reached its destination anyway. You can find my opinion on these issues in the Talk Cyprus page. The interaction there also hints a bit how I have been led to lose my famous oriental patience... Greetings. --E4024 (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Misunderstanding happens sometimes. Happy editing. Grandmaster 16:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Europe vs. Asia (again)[edit]

CMD, I feel bad, since I agree with 99% of your geography edits and here I am questioning the 1%. You'll remember dab's (above) in-depth research on this, while perhaps not a consensus, a "standard" that has not been challenged even for the past 7 months nor changed in over a year. He describes his research above and it looks pretty thorough to me. I don't believe more than a very small minority of sources since the WWI era have "pushed" the Kuma-Manych Depression delineation. I do know that nearly all atlases, geog. texts, etc., though "secondary" sources, go with the Ural R.-Caucasus crest definition over the past near-century. I believe we should continue to include (characterized as mostly historic) the Kuma-Manych option, as dab believed, but most definitely not treat it as "Most" or "convenient"....neither being true. We have to do something, as this new (May 28) bit conflicts with the bullets in the lede here, and the three WP commons maps in this article, with Europe, with Azerbaijan, with Armenia, with Georgia, with Europe maps all over WP, etc. (since the preponderance of modern sources really do use the Caucasus crest and Ural R.) I would delete the first bit below for the second bit (basically, a return to the April 2011 to May 2012 status quo)...pardon the voluminous text here, I'm rather inelegant in WP etiquette and wasn't sure how to propose this otherwise:

....the Black Sea, up to the Sea of Azov.[1] After this, the border is less well defined. Most geographers use the convenient Kuma–Manych Depression between the Black and Caspian seas.[1] Others use the watershed of the Caucasus Mountains as the border, and others still the Aras River. [2] After the Caspian, the border follows either the Emba[1] or Ural River,[3] before following the Ural Mountains until it reaches the Arctic Ocean.[1]
Some sources assign the area around the Caucasus Mountains to Asia,[1] however no definition is entirely satisfactory, with.....
for
.....the Black Sea, along the watershed of the Greater Caucasus, the northwestern portion of the Caspian Sea and along the Ural River and Ural Mountains to the Arctic Ocean, as both mapped and listed in many atlases including that of the National Geographic Society and as described in the World Factbook. According to this definition, Georgia and Azerbaijan both have most of their territory in Asia, although each has small parts of their northern borderlands north of the Greater Caucasus watershed and thus in Europe.
The Kuma–Manych Depression (more precisely, the Manych River, the Kuma–Manych Canal and the Kuma River) remains cited less commonly as one possible natural boundary in contemporary sources, more frequently in 19th and 18th century sources. [4] A few sources cite the Aras River on the Iran boundary. [2] or the Emba[1] Most modern authorities, however, use the Caucasus Mountains watershed crest (or the nearby international boundaries) and the Ural River.[5]
However no definition is entirely satisfactory, with..... DLinth (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
My edit was simply a response to the fact that a new source declared the Aras as the border (putting part of Iran in Europe as far as I can tell, which is a rare point of view indeed) which definitely was unusual. However, I couldn't justify reverting the edit, as it provided the only source in that bit of prose. After that I quickly ran through a few sources to try and fix the sourcelessness problem and settled on Britannica as another tertiary source, which I hoped offered a more general point of view. I too was surprised it used the Kuma-Manych depression, but I added it because it was in the source.
Going back to the previous status quo means going back to a section without sources, which is against policy, despite my personal questions about the text that I wrote. I'm not exactly loaded with spare time at the moment, but if you have sources (and we both know there are plenty) to back up the original prose then the article can go back to it. Obviously a geographical source would be better than the generic Britannica and the overview The Caucasus: An Introduction book.
You're of course perfectly within editing spirit to revert my edit if you find it's actually that bad a mistake, although if you do I suggest reverting to the pre-Aras river version. Either way, it's clear that this section actually needs solid sources to back it up. CMD (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Good perspective. I tried to do just that (what you recommend above) in an edit just now. There's an overwhelming number of sources the more I looked agreeing on the "modern definition" (see edit....previous status quo approximately...I added several of them but by no means an exhaustive amount! Thanks again for monitoring these things!! (By contrast, I've monitored far fewer geography WP articles comparatively, but I have followed this particular article for years.) DLinth (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I had a cursory look, and it's good to see more sources. Will try to have a more detailed look a bit further in the future. I'm sure there's more refining to do. I'd like to have more sources at the beginning, for example, although I think we can just use the ones currently below. CMD (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Chagos Archipelago/British Indian Ocean Territory[edit]

I have a question about the Chagos Archipelago, most official references said that it is equidistant from Africa and Asia. When BIOT was created, Chagos was detached from Mauritius (controversial then and now). Politically they are administered from the United Kingdom, while historically it is part of Mauritius which is an African nation. The UK has said that when/if BIOT (which now consists of only Diego Garcia and the Outer Islands) is no longer required for defence purposes, they will be returned to Mauritius. Anybody here know which continents it belong officially (i can't find any good reference about it) Africa or Asia as templates on Wikipedia classified it as an Asian. Kingroyos (talk) 08:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

There isn't really much officialness about continents. I've usually seen it lumped with South Asia, and thus Asia rather than Africa. For example, the factbook. I wouldn't be surprised however at a source including it in Africa, and I suspect if it returns to Mauritius that's what sources will switch to doing. CMD (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha[edit]

What's their position in relation to Africa, South America, Antarctica? Japinderum (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Europe: Continent or subcontinent?[edit]

Why is there opposition to the alternative idea of Europe as a subcontinent, as is implied by the 6 continent model that treats Eurasia as a single continent? If India is a subcontinent by virtue of being separated from the rest of the Eurasian landmass by a range of mountains, then surely Europe can be interpreted in the same way due to its separation by a range of mountains. If not, then why is Europe a full continent and India/Pakistan et al only a subcontinent? What is the physiographical, geographical, and geological logic of this double standard? I tried to introduce this to the article using a referenced source, but another editor, AbelM7, has reverted me several times insisting the Europe is a full continent and only a full continent, and that no other interpretation is acceptable, regardless of the physical evidence or any referenced source. So I need to know the view of other editors as to whether it's acceptable to present the alternative interpretation of Europe as a subcontinent with a referenced source by a published author. Please review the recent edit history of the past week or so before weighing in on this issue. User:ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk) 05:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Saint Helena etc. (contd)[edit]

  1. ^ a b c d e f "Asia". Encyclopaedia Britannica. 2012. 
  2. ^ a b Thomas De Waal. The Caucasus: An Introduction. Oxford University Press, 2010. ISBN 0195399765, 9780195399769. p. 10
  3. ^ Klement Tockner; Urs Uehlinger; Christopher T. Robinson (2009). "18". Rivers of Europe (Illustrated ed.). Academic Press. ISBN 9780123694492. 
  4. ^ e.g. Encyclopædia Britannica Online (2011) s.v. "Kuma-Manych Depression": "It is often regarded as the natural boundary between Europe and Asia."
  5. ^ Klement Tockner; Urs Uehlinger; Christopher T. Robinson (2009). "18". Rivers of Europe (Illustrated ed.). Academic Press. ISBN 9780123694492.