Talk:Mediterranean Sea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Oceans (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oceans, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of oceans, seas, and bays 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.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
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.
WikiProject Europe (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Europe 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.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Ancient Macedonia in the article introduction[edit]

This has been altered by various users in recent days, and although I agree that 'ancient Macedonians' has no place in the introductory paragraphs simply it is in itself ambiguous (although most sources agree that they were in fact a Greek people), I think it is best to start a discussion here and avoid edit warring. My objection to including "Macedonians" as a separate ethnic group is firstly because Macedonians were not a different cultural group than that of Greece (although they were a different state, much like Thessaly and Epirus were independent Greek states) and secondly because this is not supported by the article on ancient Macedonians. --Philly boy92 (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't see a problem with the 'ancient Macedonians' being mentioned in the list. The whole paragraph talks about population and civilizations that overlap in time and geographicly. What difference is there between:
Who can answer to the above can also understand why 'ancient Macedonians' can be listed among the rest of the cultures mentioned in the article.--Sal73x (talk) 00:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I am afraid that if we are gonna have the "Ancient Macedonians" listed as a separate culture, the same has to be done with Spartan, Minoan and Mycenaean cultures. We cant have both "Ancient Macedonian" and "Greek" cultures at same time. Or both "Minoan" and "Greek" cultures. I am surprised there are 2 Greek cultures separated as two completely different and independent culture groups. The Mediterranean Sea article comes in complete contrast with the Pella article and the Ancient Macedonians article itself. --SilentResident (talk) 19:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I understand your concerns SilentResident but we can't compare Athens, Sparta or the Minoan to what was the Macedonian Empire and the conquest of Alexander the Great. It is true that the heart of Macedonia lies in Greece but the Empire was something much bigger that the small regional reality.
  • I also find quite odd that on the list are mentioned population like Jews and Gauls that have hardly sailed the Med when no body remembers to mention the Maritime republics. Where are the Genoans? and the Venetians? We could carry on for hours and it would be a good idea to have some criteria to how and who to insert in this list.--Sal73x (talk) 04:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Your argument fails even more when you bring in the Macedonian Empire. If anything, the Macedonian Empire was even more Greek than Macedon prior to Philip II. SilentRider is correct, Macedon was and is considered to be under the Greek cultural influence; 'Greece' was not a country in ancient times, it was a civilization. Aristotle defines 'Greek' as 'not one born in Greece but one who adopts the ways of the Greeks'. I agree with SilentResident, if you want to include Macedon as a separate entity, then you should also include every single Greek political entity of ancient times (Athens [you are forgeting that Athens had her own Empire], Thebes, Megara, the Mycenean culture, the Minoan Kingdom, as well as the ancient Greek kingdoms of Epirus and Thessaly. Not to mention the Greek colonies of Greater Greece and Asia Minor and other colonies on the black sea and Egypt, Spain and France. Also, the Hellenistic kingdoms.) All of these were obviously "Greek", so the question is why does Macedon deserve to be on its own? --Philly boy92 (talk) 11:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Sal73x, I am afraid there is no logic in your argument when you are talking about culture but you are using as example the whole empire that conquered the half -known to the ancients- world. And it is just pointless to note that Macedonia wasn't always an empire but a small kingdom for most of the time. Therefore it is not safe to use the empire to define the culture of the small kingdom itself. And unless you are saying that the Macedonian Empire suddenly abandoned its roots and adopted a foreign culture (!), the Macedonian Empire everybody knows, just had its own culture and knowledge coming from its homeland to influence the lands it conquered, while at same time it showed a respect to the local cultures found in those regions it conquered (see Babylon for example). Much like as with the Roman Empire, the Macedonian Empire didn't adopted any different cultures, such as the Persian or Indian, as their own culture. It respected the local cultures and architectures, while at same time, it allowed its own culture to spread and influence the Middle Eastern world for the decades to come. But this article is not the right article for further discussing about the Macedonian culture, besides of why it may or may not be listed as seperate from the other cultures. I think the Macedon talk page is better suited for this. And about the Genoan and Venetian cultures, I think the best is to add an Italian culture next to the Roman culture in the list. The Italian will cover the time period from the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the Renaissance and up to the modern times. Using this logic, the same has to be done with the Byzantine culture as well, which is missing from the list. The Byzantine culture covers the time period from the Eastern Roman Empire up to the Ottoman Empire. --SilentResident (talk) 11:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
That list is ridiculous and totally over the top for an intro. Remember WP:UNDUE. I've cut the Gordian Knot (heh) and got rid of what has essentially devolved into a gratuitous compilation of patriotic IP editors' favourite cultures, serving no real purpose and fuelling nothing but pointless, petty debates and nationalistic sentiments. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Major cities (municipalities) with populations larger than 200,000 people bordering the Mediterranean Sea are[edit]

Since Almería and Castellón Metropolitan Areas (see es:Área metropolitana de Almería and es:Área metropolitana de Castellón) are excluded from the list, I think the fairest thing to do is not to add "metropolitan areas" and delete all core cities (municipalities) with less than 200,000 (i.e. Almería, Piraeus and Taranto have all three around 190,000 inhabitans, Castellón de la Plana and Nador 180,000, etc.) (talk) 08:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Oludeniz03.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Oludeniz03.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Neither cohesive nor logical organization[edit]

Ok, so I figured I would find out some information about the weather in the Med. Not so in this article. Neither the word "weather" or "storm" appears once. The section on "climate" doesn't even link to the catch-all phrase Mediterranean climate because that term was mentioned, oddly, in the section on geography further up. How can an article about a famed ocean and a region never mention keywords like:

  • tropical
  • weather
  • climate
  • rain
  • storms

whereas there are large sections about its history and how it got its name which are hardly things of general interest. And incidentally, the Mediterranean climate article is awash with everything but the Med's climate, rather it is a loanword for a climate zone found worldwide.

After a lengthy search, I finally stumbled upon Mediterranean tropical cyclone, which covers some weather events in the Med. I like to saw logs! (talk) 07:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The coastal countries[edit]

This section is, at present, written clumsily, bordering ridicule. No need to specify "continents" for countries, ridiculously creating two Turkeys, to give the simplest example. (Thus in WP we have two Turkeys, one is called "East Thrace" and the other "Anatolia"!) On the other hand, the Spanish cities of Ceuta and Melilla, in Africa, have been clumsily called "Spanish enclaves" (?). They are neither enclaves nor exclaves, because they have coasts, they are Spanish territories in Africa. (To be an enclave or exclave they should be surrounded by the territories of another country, like the Spanish exclave of Llivia "within" France. BTW TRNC is not a "territory", it is a sovereign state which has limited recognition. I am going to remove the clumsy "continental separation" from the coastal countries part. --E4024 (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

TRNC is far from being a sovereign state. It is recognized by 1/193 recognized countries(by 0.52% of the countries). By being recognized by 1 country which is the country it depends on I find it funny considering it a sovereign state. It is indeed a territory. I agree with E4024 for the case with the 2 Turkeys issue112.133.201.70 (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
We need to maintain WP:NPOV. Whilst the vast majority of countries do not recognise TRNC as independent, this is not the only view. We should state that it is a country with a note stating this this is disputed. Bazonka (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Its not the vast majority but the whole world. Stating that it is an island country is far from reality. There are no sources for that. Why is it not a NPOV to go with what 192 countries state and state that there is one country that says the opposite? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Turkey is part of the "whole world". We must relect their view, even if it is only a small minority, and even if it conflicts with your own beliefs. Read WP:NPOV. Bazonka (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm being wrong but I think your biased. The dominant view presented will be a single country's view? Does that make sense to you? TRNC was originally listed(before today) as a disputed territory and now you changed it to be an island nation. Well done. Now TRNC is an island nation despite the UN resolutions which declare it as illegal and despite the fact that it is NOT considered to be a country by 192 countries just to present the view of a single country. Congrats for your level of professionalism on this article and after seeing this I have no more words.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
It exists in reality on the ground, so it is significant. Is still listed as disputed. We're not saying what's right and what's wrong. Bazonka (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah sure. If one day Turkey(for example) decides not to recognize the UK go and change the status of the UK to be a partially recognized state and argue that it is not a proper country. Instead of showing that the TRNC is disputed, you changed its status to be an island nation with limited recognition clearly abusing the phrase "partially recognized" as it is declared illegal by the UN. If it was listed as a disputed territory(which it is as Cyprus claims its territory) instead of an island nation would it be a non neutral point of view? Again, well done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
1 out of 192 is partial. Not 0% and not 100%, so it's partial. I therefore fail to see how I am "abusing the phrase" when it is a simple statement of fact. It may not be a fact that you, the UN, or the vast majority of nations, are comfortable with, but that doesn't change that fact that TRNC is recognised as an independent nation by Turkey. (I should point out that I am not pro-Turk by any means. I have no strong feelings about who has sovereignty over Cyprus.) Bazonka (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
The problem is not that there is a dispute on whether it is a sovereign state or not but that you take Turkey's side and present it as an island nation instead of being neutral and present it as just a disputed territory/disputed country. A clearly biased move. If a random country decided now not to recognize the UK would you have the same feelings? Would you accept comments such as "1 out of 192 is partial"? I bet you wouldn't. You fail to provide sources that TRNC is an island nation and yet you present it as such. Like that its not enough, you misleadingly comment it as partially recognized( 1 Vs 193) instead of "recognized only by Turkey". All in all there is a state which is not recognized from all but one country and you present it as a partially recognized country with limited recognition instead of as a disputed territory. If you still fail to see whats wrong then I'm sorry. I just thought that an encyclopedia was accurate112.133.201.70 (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
It does say "recognised only by Turkey". Bazonka (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Does it now? What about the POV of Cyprus(and the international community's) that it not a separate country? Why isn't it also marked as disputed territory as this is what the Cyprus Dispute is about and instead marked as a country? (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
"Recognised only by Turkey" implies that the rest of the world does not recognise. If you are not happy with this, then I suggest you raise your concerns elsewhere, such as WP:NPOVN or WP:3. Bazonka (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Is this an article about a sea or legal status of countries ? TRNC is a fact regardless of the number of countries which recognize it. (There are other countries around Mediterranean which are partially recognized by others.) I don't think this discussion is a fruitful one. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

One image per country[edit]

An image I've uploaded to gallery was deleted. The rationale was that the number of images is limited to 1 per country to prevent overload. Understandable, but I wonder if there is a WP rule to that effect ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

There's no rule as far as I know, it is just a practical consideration to limit the size of the gallery and regulate nationalistic pride. Feel free to regularly change the images in the gallery and add images from countries/territories that as yet do not feature in the gallery such as Monaco. - Takeaway (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Basin countries - Edit request[edit]

The "basin countries" in the Infobox are serious or there is something strange about them? --E4024 (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Completely useless variable.In the definition it is required that all countries should be listed. But the editor has included Black Sea, so more than half of Europe has been listed (Germany, Poland, Russia etc.) But for some reason, Red Sea is excluded. In the original format there are 29 variables. Only 7 of them are used in this article. We can as well do without basin countries. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
The list of basin countries is based on this map. The previous list of basin countries was wholly inadequate. - Takeaway (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
So Russia is a Mediterranean basin country and Jordan not. I'm sure Catherina II would be delighted to hear this. But anyway I didn't say that the list is unsourced I said it is useless.Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
That's how hydrology works. It's not always how you'd expect. I oppose removal of the list. Bazonka (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
(Rain)water from Russia eventually flows into the Mediterranean Sea, water from Jordan doesn't. It's not about politics or culture, it's about the drainage basin of the Mediterranean. The drainage basin (watershed) is an important aspect of any body of water and should be mentioned in Wikipedia articles on bodies or water. - Takeaway (talk) 11:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

This list is too long, I added the Template:Collapsible list. Now the list is hidden by default, and has an option of show [1]. However, still it is worth to discuss the removal this absurd list. Subtropical-man (talk) 11:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Please explain why mentioning the drainage basin is absurd. - Takeaway (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Since it is now hidden, then anyone who thinks it's absurd doesn't need to look at it. But it's there for anyone who wants it. Bazonka (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


Malta is included in the list of countries surrounding the Mediterranean, it should not be. Malta is surrounded by the Mediterranean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Technically, yes you're right. But omitting it from the list of Mediterranean countries would be a far worse crime. Bazonka (talk) 08:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I've reworded the text to address this. Bazonka (talk) 09:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Some controversial additions to the "Environmental history" section[edit]

The recent additions by User:Serten contain some fairly bold claims: for example: the wide ecological diversity typical of Mediterranean Europe was man made. Do we have any reliable sources to verify this? Jarble (talk) 02:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

First I am surprised that you think that is a bold claim - ecological diversity in Europe and other densily (human) populated areas is and has been mostly man-made and closely connected to traditional (agri)cultural use patterns and property / usage differences. Any basic textbook of environmental history will confirm that, take Joachim Radkau, Bernd Hermann, Uelkötter and others or refer to landscape types as heath, shrubland, transhumance or wood pasture. The med contains a lot of islands, Peninsulas, a highly varied geology and a extremly long coastline (longer than the non Maghreb Afrika) with a lot of Altitudinal zonation and together with the ferticle crescent had a head start with the most animal species useable as livestock world wide. In sofar the combination of natural and human factors is quite special and provides the base for a extremely high eco diversity.
That said, the factoid in question is rather trivial and either you check as said a basic taxtbook, or the source given itself "The Nature of Mediterranean Europe: An Ecological History" or - to make your live easier - you already can find that in the review by Brian M. Fagan on Project MUSE. In a nutshell: People have already transformed most parts of Mediterranean Europe 4,000 years ago and the man-made diversity typical of Mediterranean Europe is and has been based on the continued occupation by people gaining their livelihoods locally. Serten (talk) 08:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
No, it is not man-made, but it is human-influenced. Man did not put all of the plants and animals there, although of course his actions have shaped their distribution etc. Bazonka (talk) 08:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
One might doubt the wording, but its quite OK to call "diversity" man made. Thats the scientific perspective which is sometimes counterintuitive. Take a simple meadow, heath or alpine transhumance "Alm": Without human influence you would have a boring but highly sustainable forest, only repeated and in some ways highly disruptive human influences render highly ecodiverse and specific habitats possible. Thats man made diversity, nothing else. Actually the highest eco diversity in Germany have miitary training camps, large industrial sites and the outskirts of large cities, the Munich Panzerwiese (tank meadow) became a Habitats Directive, the Wagbachniederung, a former molasse sewage plant is now among the most important bird conservation areas in middle europe and so forth. In either case, I agree with you, the species felt invited themselves. ;) Serten (talk) 09:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
The wording is definitely wrong. "The ecological diversity was man-made" implies that humans actively put all of the plants and animals in place, which of course is nonsense. I have reworded the article to indicate that the diversity was instead shaped by mankind. Bazonka (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Who told you so? The original wording is the scientific one. Better keep up with the science. Serten (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@Bazonka, Serten, Epipelagic: Also, these statements appear to lend undue weight to the writings of Alfred Thomas Grove and Oliver Rackham, which they rely upon. Jarble (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't disagree with that. Bazonka (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Serten is currently applying the same undue weight to Tragedy of the commons based on the same book, The Nature of Mediterranean Europe. Who knows where this will go if Serten reads another book. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
@Epipelagic, Serten: Still, it might be appropriate to include this information as long as it is discussed alongside other significant viewpoints. The views of these authors should not overshadow the other perspectives in this article. Jarble (talk) 01:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
@ Jarble: I dont see a problem with overshadowing, as the perspective about hazards and env. history was not mentioned at all in the previous version. To underline your point about "undue weight" you have to mention other of similar credentials that a) researched the environmental history of the med to the extent Grove and others did and b) contradict Rackham / Grove or Radkau.
@ Epipelagic: Is it really so bad when someone comes up with actual science? I have just started to give an outlook on The Nature of Mediterranean Europe respectively the environmental history of the region and wrote an article about Alfred Thomas Grove. His credentials are great and exactly cvovering the articles topic. The book with Rackham alone would be an excellent base of a separate article Environmental history of of Mediterranean Europe, as he summarizes and puts into context centuries of reasearch and popular believes about the nature of the Med. As long as Epipelagic or others don't discuss or provide actual science but just express a fear of actual science being able to endanger their believes, thats a bad start. If you have doubts about the conclusions - and can provide actual science countering it - so start listing evidence, but not private opionion. Serten (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Serten II: I'm still confused by some parts of this discussion. Earlier you mentioned that the "highest eco diversity in Germany have miitary training camps, large industrial sites and the outskirts of large cities.". Is this statement supported by any third-party sources? Jarble (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jarble:. It may sound surprising to lay people, but its basic freshman stuff and applies not only to Germany. Check the sources for "Species diversity has been found to peak in fringe regions between urban and rural areas" in urban ecology. Its a trivial part of the legal setup of zoning and planning law, compare quote (diversity is higher in large cities compared to agricultural zones, City of Bremen Zoning planning). The whole topic was started in the 1925ies, found a larger focus since the 1980ies and of cause after the wall came down 1989.
  1. Military: See e.g. Konversion und Naturschutz / Dieter Wallschläger and further University of Potsdam hconferences and programs, e.g. or [ There are even studies how to substitute Missing Dynamics on Former Military Training Areas after they have been left by the military. Serten II (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Serten II, Epipelagic: Nonetheless, I would expect pristine landscapes such as old-growth forests to be more biodiverse than urban or agricultural areas. Is my intuition correct? Jarble (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Serten II: Earlier in this discussion, you wrote that "Without human influence you would have a boring but highly sustainable forest". Would human activities reduce the amount of biodiversity in an old-growth forest with no previous human influence? Jarble (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Your intuition is the common wisdom, but completely on the wrong track. First, there is nothing like a "pristine" forest and biodiversity in a given biotop or as such is no realistic goal per se but a sort of ideology, trying to fight globalization. Compare Radkau, era of ecology p617 (german). The most pristine forests in Europe are former royal hunting grounds protected from farmers sending their cattle in. As well in the US "wilderness" does not exist any more since humans started to use fire. Traditional (and different) forms of Agriculture produced the highest diversity in Europe till the 1930ies, you cannot go back there without force, either on people or by machines. 08:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Serten II: Is it possible that agriculture could be beneficial to biodiversity in Europe, in spite of its harmful effects on the natural environment? Jarble (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, it depends on the technology - and as well on the patterns of agriculture. 1930ies agriculture was highly beneficial to biodiversity. But would you like to force people to turn back to those days? And to quote another WP article with strong defictits doesnt help with your question. Better read actual science ;) Serten II (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Expansion of the Tourism, tons of places in the Mediterranean Sea, lets go Wikipedia[edit]

Expansion of the Tourism, tons of places in the Mediterranean Sea, lets go Wikipedia. David Adam Kess (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

a good idea, but my spanish is good, but not good enough to translante.:CHEERS but i still want an expansion of the Tourism, tons of places in the Mediterranean Sea, lets go Wikipedia. David Adam Kess (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)