Talk:Europe

Previous Discussions:

• Archive 1 (pre-2004):
  Whether Europe is really a continent, Earliest use of "Europa" to mean Europe, Whether Armenia and Georgia are in Europe, The Baltic states, Notes for rewriting, Breaking the article into themed sub-articles, The map, Deleted statements, Whether Oceania is really a continent, There is no... node eight!

• Archive 2 (2004 to 18 Feb 2005):
  The Regions (Updated), Definition of "Northern Europe", Status of the Channel Islands, Extent/Map, The starry flag, The Middle Ages, the Dark Ages and Medieval times, Which countries are in Europe?, Political Nations of Europe, Map of Europe, Links, Caucasus and Transcaucasus, FYR Macedonia's name, Independent "Countries", A geographical definition of Europe, Etymology of "Europa", related discussion about the list of countries, or the Emba River in other definitions, Calculate european and non-european areas of cross-continent countries, independent states, east boundaries, Whether Europe is really a continent, regions map, Greenland
• Archive 3 (18 Feb 2005 > 13 November 2006 )
• Archive 4 (13 November 2006 > 1 December 2006)
• Archive 5 (2007)
• Archive 6 (19 December 2007 > 9 July 2008)
• Archive 7 (24 July 2007 > 31 December 2008)

Etymology

89.240.13.175 (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)The name comes from Lithuanian-Sarmatian language meaning the land surrounded by big uncalm sees ('juro-pa' - this one it is pronounced the same as europa, or 'pa-jure' - most used word in todays Lithuanian vocabulary). How many things you just do not know about Lithuania...moreover her three suns are Sar-peda (Sar- means the same as Sar- in Sar-mata - to guard, to defend...and mata is a mother, while peda means a feet - or just follow the footsteps of your ancestors) and Radimantas (today in Lithuania there are thousands of people bearing the same name; this name means to find the tresures - 'rado' to find and 'manta' the belongings or treasures) and finaly Minos was even the only king of Lithuania (Min-daugas) in 13th century AD. This name means the thoughtfull or thinking or very clever one, and 'daug' means 'a lot'. Moreover, Crete means the land who is shaking (Kreta in Lithuanian language (without any changes in the pronounciation) means the shaking land...'kratyti' means 'to shake')...89.240.13.175 (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Got sources for any of this? Jamrifis (talk) 10:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

EU = the political Europe?

I'm not much into editing wikipedia, and I may not know exactly how to do this right, so I apologize if this discussion should be taken elsewhere. However, this statement in the article is plainly absurd and should be fixed: "Politically, Europe comprises those countries in the European Union, but may at times be used formally or more casually to refer to both the EU together with other non-EU countries e.g. the Council of Europe has 47 member countries and includes the 27 countries which are part of the EU."
I don't know anyone who would claim that Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and Liechtenstein are not European countries in accordance with a political definition. Besides, the definition would be incredibly weak prior to the 15+2 new countries joined after 2000. Would anyone seriously claim that Poland was not a European country prior to 2000 when the EU clearly targettet it as such? There is no reason at all to stick to that definition.
I am of course aware that many non-Europeans would perhaps confuse the two, but my take is that the "Europe = EU" statement is a casual definition that is politically wrong. I'd argue that any political definition should be somewhat self-imposed. Thus, membership of the Council Of Europe could serve as a very good way to identify the political Europe. It fails by excluding Belarus, yet a definition that could solve this is: "Any country that is a member of the European Council or is landlocked within the Council is a European country." Another suggestion is to include every country that has negotiated with the EU for membership. --84.215.120.152 (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You did well to post this here. Your concern relates to the content of the Europe article and this is the talk page to the article. All articles have their individual talk pages.

The formulation is really bad, and I agree we should change it. However, I am not completely on your side. At this moment, I would write something like "Politically, the term Europe is sometimes used to refer to the EU." Newspapers do this quite regularly, so a source for this misconception would be easy to find. On the other hand, nobody using it this way is trying to say that non-EU countries are non-European countries. To give you an example: When, in the current (or better eternal :) Israel-Palestine-Gaza-whatever conflict, commentators request a stronger involvement of Europe, they mean the EU and not the summation of all countries on this continent. However, they do know very well that Switzerland is not a member state of the EU, and they know just as well that Switzerland is in Europe. It's a colloquial use of the term that often occurs in the international debate.

In the end of your comment, you try to define European countries through membership in an organization. I admit that it was probably the bad formulation you quoted that brought you onto this track. I would warn you doing so. This is next to impossible. Here, at Wikipedia we will probably never be able to define who's in and who's out. This is controversial, please skim through the talk page history of this article. You will find many pages dealing those issues.

To give you an example the Council of Europe (CoE) does not include Kazachstan, yet many people say it has parts in Europe. On the other hand, you would fail adding a specifier as in the case of Belarus, because many people strongly believe that Kazachstan has no parts in Europe. Moreover, we have several countries, which to some are countries and to others are not. Another example, the EU and CoE include Cyprus, and yet there are people who are absolutely certain that Cyprus is not part of Europe. Etc...

Just so you know, 10+2 new countries joined the EU after 2000. Tomeasy _{T C} 19:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer (I messed up the 10+2 I see). I do agree that in a political context, it may be used to refer to the EU by the media and foreign leaders. I'm not entirely convinced that a "Europe needs to act now" statement would really point to EU in its entity, however, as I feel they're commonly pointing to the 3-5 bigger members (excluding Russia), and I mean this in particular in foreign policy issues. This is perhaps trivial, however and your suggestion is good and it's close to something I was trying to suggest. The definition issue I will leave behind since it's dealt with in the article to some extent. I'd just note that Belarus and Kazakhstan has been past members (or special guests) or told they can join the CoE if they meet certain standards (here the CoE seems to disagree with the EU about what "Europe" is). My point wasn't to discuss this, however, but rather that the wording has to be changed to SOMETHING ELSE. If the EU+CoE issue is to be kept as part of the definition of the political Europe, it might as well include those ongoing applicant countries. --84.215.120.152 (talk), 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I purposely did not include the CoE and the counting of countries in my proposed formulation, because I would drop it altogether. I think we are quite close with what should be said about this sloppy usage of the term Europe. So why don't you just give it a shot and change the wording of the article. I will copy edit, if I think I can improve, and so on. In the worst case, we meet here again, but I think that won't be necessary.

BTW, it is very helpful, in many respect, to sign comments. You do so by typing four tildes (i.e., ~~~~) at the end of your comment. thanks. Tomeasy _{T C} 22:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

New background map for labelled map

I'm replotting the labels on the labelled map here. Should we use the new map (it is also rendered to 700px wide, similar to the old map)? If so, can somebody please help me with the extremely monotonous work of replotting? - SSJ ☎ 04:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the map you are preparing is better and would eventually support its introduction to the article. I am also willing to help you with the labels. However, I see the improvement as very minor, because the new map has also some disadvantages.

The old map uses certainly a weird projection. However, as a result of this, the countries show up much larger for the same px-width, which helps very much when placing the labels, because the map is anyway very busy. This is supported by the more pragmatic frame (zoom, cut-off) chosen by the old map. The new map wastes loads of space extending up to Labrador in the west and up to Svalbard in the north. I know that some might deem it necessary to show the Canary Islands as well as Franz Josef Land on a map of Europe. However, I am clearly advocating not to do so and to crop the map before we work on it.

Specifically, I propose to crop with only small margins (i) at the west coast of mainland Portugal and (ii) at the north coast of mainland Russia. Tomeasy _{T C} 11:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there's enough space for the labels within national borders, in spite of the spacious zoom. E.g. the map in the EU article is probably even a bit tighter, even though that is cropped to only show the mainland. This article is about the geographical europe. The template is called "Europe and Sea". It's not just about locating countries. Therefore I think we should "spoil ourselves" by including remote islands that are also part of Europe. 700px is enough.- SSJ ☎ 15:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You said yourself they are both 700px wide. I can see that the new map shows at least 20% more in east-west direction. Hence, it is tighter. How can you seriously claim this is not the case? Tha canary islands are geographically Africa, if you crop them you'll have 20% surface area for free. Tomeasy _{T C} 15:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that the new map isn't too tight at 700px. Template:European Union Labelled Map (blue) (which looks ok) is even tighter than what's the case with the new SVG map for this article. - SSJ ☎ 16:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I have edited the new map for ex-Yugoslavia, the most busy part of the map. I am not satisfied with the result, which I believe is not due to bad placements of the label from my side. It would be very helpful to zoom in and get lager areas. I hope you will take this advice. There is no justification to show the Atlantic up to Canada anyway. The map should show Europe and not the surrounding oceans. Tomeasy _{T C} 16:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I haven't seen the map for ex-Yoguslavia that you've edited and had a bad experience with. I've also contributed with a lot of labelled maps. Franz Josef Land happens to be a part of Europe. And as I've said, the map in a template called Europe and Sea, so I don't think it makes sense that you merely conclude that the map shouldn't show surrounding oceans. - SSJ ☎ 17:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Misunderstanding: I edited the ex-Yugoslavian states on the new map, the labeled map in your sandbox. Have a look at it.

I was not talking about Franz Josef Land in my last comments but the Canary Islands. I can imagine that your resistance to crop in the north is even higher than in the west ;-) Tomeasy _{T C} 18:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tomeasy here, the map needs to be cropped. There is no additional benefit to be gained by include the Canary Islands. Please keep in mind that French Guiana is just as much a part of France as the Canary Islands are a part of Spain, so if we want to include non-European parts of European countries, we'd need a world map. Cropping just west of Portugal and north of mainland Russia makes most sense.JdeJ (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Accroding to File:Map of Europe (political).png this map, the Azores are part of Europe. So that's the bonus of having exactly the current crop; we show 100% of Europe's geographical area, without locator boxes.- SSJ ☎ 00:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This map was made by a another Wikipedian, cites no sources, and is now used by you as authoritative?

Did you find my edits (ex-Yugoslavia) in your sandbox? How would you interpret the result? Tomeasy _{T C} 01:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no reason to question the categorisation of the Azores as a part of geographical Europe. But of course we can examine further whether it is true. Yes I've seen your edits. My interpretation is that the coordinates can be tweaked even more, but that they look fairly alright now. - SSJ ☎ 01:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I miss the borderlines in this map, of all countries visible including the European countries. Its the same issue around the map on the EU article, where theres borders of none EU countries but no bordermarkings within the EU... :-) 83.108.234.37 (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You are probably talking about the infobox maps, not the labelled map in this article. this is a more relevant debate. SSJ ☎ 16:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If people aren't interested in shaping a consensus here, I'll insert the new map. - SSJ ☎ 14:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I lost my hope that consensus could mean anything else than your initial position. Since you did not show any willingness to consider JdeJ's or my arguments to modify the frame of the map, you should not be surprised that people loose interest and will not grant your map consensus status. Tomeasy _{T C} 15:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The last argument I made was that the current crop has the benefit of showing 100% of geographical Europe. And then we talked about whether the Azores are part of Europe. And then you left. Was I ignorant? I think I've given answers to the notion that "a waste of space" should be avoided. If you are genuinely interested in shaping a consensus on a talk page, you shouldn't just leave the discussion and a week later suddenly pop back up and claim that people are ignorant. - SSJ ☎ 16:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Yes, that was your last argument -- but also your first argument. That's why I feel there is not much progress in the discussion and that's also why I feel my arguments are not taken into account.

NB: If you want to call yourself ignorant, I can of course not stop you. Still, I would like to suggest to keep such strong words out of the discussion. They seldom help the process, and they are clearly not part of my vocabulary. Tomeasy _{T C} 17:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW I have never said that I have 'my own consensus'; I said that I would interpret the lack of continued debate (and counter-arguments) as a default to 'be bold'. A lack of "willingness to consider..[other people's] arguments", I would say equals with 'ignorance'. I thought it looked like a small tirade. And that certainly doesn't "help the process". - SSJ ☎ 17:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure you may be bold. As I already expressed in my first comment, I would support the introduction of the new map that you propose. I find it better than what we currently have. The fact that I would prefer more focus on the continent, does not change my initial statement, which I had made explicitly independent from my wish to crop the map. So please, once you are done with fiddling the labels, go ahead. Tomeasy _{T C} 18:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Largest cities

The list of largest cities in the infobox has grown over the past months beyond a reasonable extend. I have deleted all cities with less than 2 million people within city proper. Of course, this rule is open to discussion (I am convinced it is reasonable). It would be nice build up consensus (even if different to my proposal) that allows easy maintenance of this content in the future. Tomeasy _{T C} 15:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Russia ??

[quote]Europe is the world's second-smallest continent by surface area, covering about 10,180,000 square kilometres (3,930,000 sq mi) or 2% of the Earth's surface and about 6.8% of its land area. Of Europe's approximately 50 states, Russia is the largest by both area and population, while the Vatican City is the smallest. Europe is the third most populous continent after Asia and Africa, with a population of 731 million or about 11% of the world's population; however, according to the United Nations (medium estimate), Europe's share may fall to about 7% in 2050.[/quote]

Since when is Russia and the total population part of Europe?

See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent

Considering this articles (and my idea) belongs Russia (at least the most part of it) to Asia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.201.17.103 (talk) 03:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Nobody claims the opposite. Tomeasy _{T C} 13:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The Ural Mountains are customarily seen to be the border between Europe and Asia (presumably, they are created by the collision of the European and Asian continental plates). KevinOKeeffe (talk) 09:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem with the Principal Map (at the top of the article)

My understanding is that the European continental plate includes most of Anatolia, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, a small chunk of northwestern Iran, and probably Cyprus too. Perhaps this is intended more as a cultural notion of what constitutes Europe (in which case, Cyprus should still be included, and perhaps Georgia and Armenia as well), but if so, I'm not sure that's really appropriate. Shouldn't the principal map of Europe, in the article on Europe, display what is, objectively, the actual European continent, not merely the vast portion of the continent which people customarily think of as being a part of it?

Personally, I don't like the idea of Turkey joining the EU either, so I can understand if someone perhaps felt inclined to leave Anatolia out, due to a tendency not to want to appear to be promoting the idea that Turkey is part of "Europe," as opposed to the geographical reality of plate tectonics. But franky, while I understand such an impulse, it simply doesn't reflect an adequately NPOV.

Or maybe this was just a simple error. I would fix it myself, but I don't actually know how to. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 09:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Abkhazia and South Ossetia

Do these places merit inclusion? The only nation to recognize their existence is Russia. Bearing in mind that Europe is here being used with a much broader intent than 'EU', what should be done to emphasize their irregularity if they are to be included. Also, perhaps this needs to be contextualized within the situation of Russian aggression in the area, particularly its war in South Ossetia. ja fiswa imċappas bil-hara! (talk) 08:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

And hence your POV is showing, "Russian aggression"? What about "Georgian aggression"? It's the same aggression (Serbian) which was used to recognise Kosovo. This is NOT the EU/NATOpedia, it is Wikipedia, and all POVs have to be covered. If Kosovo is included as an independent state, then so too will Abkhazia and South Ossetia; the key is that whenever Kosovo, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Taiwan are listed as independent states, then there should be a notation declaring that their independent status is disputed. The EU/NATO do not control Wikipedia, nor does their POV have precedence over other POV. --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

They control their borders and run their own affairs for around 15 years or so. The number of countries that recognize them is immaterial as soon as there are some. Taking them out is akin to claiming that "you dont exist because I do not recognize your existence". Moreover, it is a list of regions including Gibraltar, Isle of Man, etc. What is wrong with having them as regions even if you dont recognize them as countires? DR2006kl (talk) 10:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed both belong on the list however a note about their status would be helpful along with that of Kosovo. Recognition is important, but i see no real difference between 1 country recognizing Abkhazia and South Ossetia and a couple of dozen recognizing Kosovo. Only entities with no international recognition at all do not belong on the list. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Support. I think your suggestion is the clearest and most neutral solution. Offliner (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't include the one country who acknowledges their existence to lend/detract weight to the claim. Only to reinforce the complex and propagandist angle this could take. With a suitable note this will obviously be avoided. Also, re. my 'pov' showing; if you believe it was a war of 'Georgian aggression' and are editing Wikipedia as such, the project may have been compromised by your edits, not my recourse to Talk:Europe. ja fiswa imċappas bil-hara! (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If you add Abkhazia and South Ossetia to the list, you should add Northern Cyprus too. It's de facto independent more than 20 years. But we shouldn't add Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Northern Cyprus to the list. They are only recognized by one or two countries because of political obstinacies. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 14:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Turkish Flame, yes, we should be including Northern Cyprus, as well as the SADR and Palestine to such articles. They all have recognition from at least one other internationally recognised as per Montevideo Convention. If one other country recognises them as independent under the points of that Convention, then there is some degree of international recognition. Now, Turkish Flame, I know that you are a Kosovo supporter, but I wonder perhaps what editors who support the territorial integrity of Serbia would think about taking all others out, but leaving Kosovo. Perhaps this is not the right place to even discuss it, because this is going to affect more articles. --Russavia ^Dialogue 15:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. It is the purpose of Wikipedia to describe reality, not create it. And the current reality is that the international community considers Abkhazia and South Ossetia parts of Georgia. There are a few exceptions, true -- but to align by the exceptions rather than the rule would run contrary to the principle of due weight. Therefore, I must oppose inclusion. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 15:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

And the reality also is, is that the overwhelming majority of internationally recognised countries also do not recognise the sovereignty of Kosovo and Taiwan. We can not allow our own POV to cloud WP's NPOV. It's really that simple. --Russavia ^Dialogue 15:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I would also suggest that people read the Montevideo Convention. Unless any of you are international lawyers, and have written on the subject of international law and the ability of countries to be recognised, and can cite this information, then arguing to keep one and not another is moot and is obvious POV. And even if you were, for every cite you could provide from an expert in international law, I could cite one which provides an opposing opinion. Ooops, there's the POV thing again. Hence, why I have stated my belief that if NPOV is to be achieved, there has to be an ALL OR NONE attitude taken, and dealt with uniformly across the board. --Russavia ^Dialogue 15:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)