Talk:Southern Europe

FRANCE

Corsica is not French ethnic, it is italian ethnic. There are many problems of independence of Corsica. It is the French colony. The Mistral is a cold wind blowing over the south of France and therefore did not has the same climate as southern Europe. The French population are Celtic from northern europe. Nice and Monaco are in the Italian region. They are populated by Italians and much possess Italian names. The only areas that can be considered as southern europe in France are the Nice region and Corsica today administered by France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julio188red (talk • contribs) 05:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Alsace-Lorraine is not French ethnic, it is German ethnic. Brittany is not French ethnic, it is Breton ethnic. Nord-Pas-Calais is not French ethnic, it is Flemish ethnic, Champagne is not French ethnic, hardly anyone lives there. Not much of northern France left is there..., and definitely not Germanic other than some bits of Picardy and Normandy - even in the aforesaid, a good chunk feel Picard and Norman first before French. All of Sub-Loirean France (the bulk of France that lies south of the river Loire) can be thought of as Southern Europe. Thank you. Bytheway, your Lion of Naples was Corsican. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:411:1600:226:8FF:FEDC:FD74 (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

French people are Germanic ethnic populations. Only the old Italian territories like Nice and Corsica which are in the Italian geographical zone can be considered as in the South of Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.67.160.238 (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC) France wants to establish an economic and cultural domination since the nineteenth century on the south of Europe. And to assert herself she tries to find a justification to be partly in the south of Europe. And to assert herself, she tries to find a justification to be partly in the south of Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.67.160.238 (talk) 17:33, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Turkey is not Europe

Turkey is not Europe and any references must be deleted from the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.33.251.173 (talk) 20:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

East Thrace (the westernmost province of Turkey) certainly is, and that is shown correctly on the accompanying map. If you are trying to make a political point, this is not the place to do it. --Wally Tharg (talk) 08:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

And France is not southern europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.67.160.238 (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Map called "geo-political southern Europe"

Outside the fact that the name of this map is not in adequation (does not fit with any political border, neither national or not even regional), What is the object of this map? If the criterium is the climate situation (as we ccould understand when seing the strong red in the regions of mediterranean climate in the south-east of France) there is absolutly no reason that south-western France is marqued in light red when northern Spain and northern Italy are in strong red: south-west France has same climate than northern Spain (Atlantic coast) and is situated as much south (if not more) than central and northern Italy. Culturally speaking south-western France is not less "southern European" than south-east France. There is no reason to exclud south-west France (midi-pyrénées, Aquitaine). The logic would be that south west france is dark red like the other European regions situated at the same latitudes. Then in light red we could include Lyon area, Auvergne, Limousin, Poitou-Charentes: these regions are situated at same latitudes than Alpine Italy and shows southern French features (such as roman roofs) but also traditionally Occitan (Auvergne, Limousin) or Franco-provençal languages (Lyon, Savoie, southern Burgondy). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.59.166 (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"Outside the fact that the name of this map is not in adequation...there is absolutly no reason that south-western France is marqued in light red when northern Spain and northern Italy are in strong red"

We can discuss for a long time about each criterium and its limits. The southern or northern concepts are very subjective. For a scottish, London is already a southern city. For the spanish, Basque country is a northern region.

"There is no reason to exclud south-west France (midi-pyrénées, Aquitaine). "

There is a climatic reason. The climate of SW France is an oceanic climate (though with hotter summers), while the whole of Spain and Italy have a mediterranean climate.

"Then in light red we could include Lyon area, Auvergne, Limousin, Poitou-Charentes: these regions are situated at same latitudes than Alpine Italy"

Auvergne, Limousin, Poitou and Rhone-Alpes have an oceanic climate like Germany, Netherlands or UK, though it is a "semi-continental" degradation.Nothing to do with the whole of Italy. I don't know what you call "Alpine Italy", but even for Köppen, the regions of Milan and Turin have a subtropical climate due to the regular hot summers (which is a subtropical climatic feature ex : Milan have the same mean temperature in july as Marseille)while summers of Lyon, Berlin, Clermont-Ferrand or Stutgart are less hot, because they often know cooler periods. Once again, if we discuss about limits of the concept, the debate will have never end.

"...southern French features (such as roman roofs)..."

First, "half-rounded tiles" (because the real roman roofs were a little bit different) are a scholarly feature, not a vernacular one, spread only among the rich urban people until modern times. The vernacular rural architecture of the regions of Lyon, Limoges, London or Frankfurt until the 19th century were thatched cottages, cottages which had disappeared in the more developped and urbanized Mediterranean regions at least since the Antiquity. Second, they have become a southern europe feature, but it was not so in high middle age. For example the carolingian palaces seemed to have what you call "roman tiles", as well in northern Germany as southern France. So, it is probably a residue of an ancient scholarly feature which was spread in all Europe before the apparition of flat tiles in low middle age (maybe in parisian basin).

"...but also traditionally Occitan (Auvergne, Limousin) or Franco-provençal languages (Lyon, Savoie, southern Burgondy)."

It is a long debate, but the "franco-provençal" dialects seems to share more features with the "langue d'oil" (phonology and morphology especially). I don't speak obviously about landscapes, climate or rural architecture of Savoy, Jura or Southern Burgondy who have nothing to do with southern Europe, but rather with Switzerland, Austria or Germany.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.213.212.29 (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

"We can discuss for a long time about each criterium and its limits. The southern or northern concepts are very subjective. For a scottish, London is already a southern city. For the spanish, Basque country is a northern region. "

We can also apply objective geographical points of views, and try to apply the same criteriums to all the countries. In that point of view there is no géographical reason to assimilate northern Italy in southern Europe concept and not south western France wich is situated at the same latitudes (Milan or Venice are situated at the same latitudes than Charentes, Limousin or Auvergne).

"There is a climatic reason. The climate of SW France is an oceanic climate (though with hotter summers), while the whole of Spain and Italy have a mediterranean climate."

The whole of Spain and Italy have not a mediterranean climate at all. Both countries have many different climates: http://www.colonialvoyage.com/paesi/it/spagna/images/spagna_clima.png

If the reason is climatic, then all regions of Europe that have not a mediterranean climate must be not considered southern European, not only the french ones. Regions with oceanic climate: Galician coasts, Asturias, Cantabria, Pais vasco... have even more "pure" oceanic climate than south-western France (and get the traditional products of oceanic areas such as cider instead of wine for exemple in the northern coast of Spain, the main dish there is fabada, a spanish version of cassoulet). In this "green Spain" the climate has absolutly nothing mediterranean, the waters are cool, the summers wet and cool, the winters mild and wet... that is Not mediterranean at all. If south-western France is excluded from southern Europe for climatic reasons, then why northern Spain and northern Portugal isn't? Inside Spain, especially the castillan plateau has not a mediterranean climate either, but a semi arid continental one, northern Italy (Po plains and mountains) have not mediterranean climates eit her.

"Auvergne, Limousin, Poitou and Rhone-Alpes have an oceanic climate like Germany, Netherlands or UK, though it is a "semi-continental" degradation."

Rhône-Alpes have not an oceanic climate but a mediterranean climate in its southern part, a semi-continental climate in the north and moutanous climates in the mountains. Auvergne and Limousin climates are largely marqued by mountainous and continental degradations and are far to the be typical oceanic climates that you seem to talk about. That said, oceanic climates are not found only in northern Europe (Germany, Netherlands, UK) as you seem to let thinking but are found in the oceanic areas of the Iberian peninsula (which is in southern Europe, no?) : north Portugal coast, Galicia, Asturias, Cantabria, Pais vasco also have oceanic climates... Are these regions not in southern Europe because they are not mediterranean?

"Nothing to do with the whole of Italy"

The "whole" of Italy doesn't have one unique climate... mediterranean concerns the coasts, but as a whole Italy has many different climates, including continental and moutainous: http://lnx.ilpolline.it/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/clima.jpg

"I don't know what you call "Alpine Italy" I call Alpine Italy the area of The Alps that are situated in Italy (about 50% of Alps mountains are situated in Italy; that is more than in Austria or Switzerland). This Alpine Italy does obviously doesn't have at all a mediterranean climate.

" Milan and Turin have a subtropical climate due to the regular hot summers (which is a subtropical climatic feature ex : Milan have the same mean temperature in july as Marseille)"

Having a mediterranean climate doesn't mean having hot summers... Summers are often more hot in continental climates. Milan and the whole of the Po Plain has much colder winters than those found Marseille and mediterranean climates. This is not a mediterranean climate at all because the winters are cold and the wet and dry seasons reversed in comparision with mediterranean climate, it is usually classified as continental or sometimes as of a degradated "chinese type".

http://www.tulipworld.com/info/bulbcare/images/xtra-europe.gif

"While summers of Lyon, Berlin, Clermont-Ferrand or Stutgart are less hot, because they often know cooler periods. "

Lyon, Berlin and clermont-ferrand don't have the same climates, there is no logic to lump them in one unique group vs Milan. To let thinking that Lyon climate is supposed to have more in common with Berlin's than with Turin's is somehow absurd. If you compare winter's temperatures you will notice that northern Italian plains and in Alpine areas the winters are often colder than both Lyon's and Clermont-ferrand's... That coldness doesn't seem to bother you to link the Po plain with mild areas of mediterranean Europe, when the winters of south-western France are much milder... Often milder than mediterranean climates... and you have big difficulties to understand they are fully part of southern Europe (and situated at the same latitudes, so geographically as much in southern part of Europe as northern Italy)

" First, "half-rounded tiles" (because the real roman roofs were a little bit different) are a scholarly feature, not a vernacular one, spread only among the rich urban people until modern times. "

I'm sorry but "half-rounded tiles" ("tuiles romanes" or "tuiles canal" in french) are a vernacular feature since much longer time than the modern times in Poitou, charentes, Vendée, most of Aquitaine and midi-pyrénées; and, like it or not it is a typical feature of southern Europe.

" The vernacular rural architecture of the regions of Lyon, Limoges, London or Frankfurt until the 19th century were thatched cottages, cottages which had disappeared in the more developped and urbanized Mediterranean regions at least since the Antiquity."

That's wrong. Lyon's vernacular architecture have nothing to see with London's or Frankfurt ones. In your dreams maybe. vernacular architecture that dates back much farther than the 19th century in Lyon's and Clermont-Ferrand areas: http://thalie.t.h.pic.centerblog.net/5se92cgb.jpg http://s1.hubimg.com/u/85063_f520.jpg http://www.tourinfos.com/collectif/r0022/d0069/m0003/photo/z042164a.jpg http://escotal.voila.net/image_thiers/thiers7.jpg

"Second, they have become a southern europe feature, but it was not so in high middle age. For example the carolingian palaces seemed to have what you call "roman tiles", as well in northern Germany as southern France. So, it is probably a residue of an ancient scholarly feature which was spread in all Europe before the apparition of flat tiles in low middle age (maybe in parisian basin). "

First, "tuiles romanes" are nowadays a tipical feature of southern European vernacular architecture; and most non-montainous south-western France has those roofs, as north as in Vendée. It participates as much (if not more) as a definition of a typical southern European ambiance than a mediterranean vegetation and climate can do it. let's see: http://www.villagesdefrance.free.fr/images/photo_talmont.jpg http://image-photos.linternaute.com/image_photo/550/autres-villes-la-flotte-france-1312524677-16875.jpg http://moniquetdany.numeriblog.fr/photos/charentes/marais_poitevin1.jpg http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/12/fa/5d/st-emilion-plaza.jpg All those exemples in a greater south-western France look north European?

Secondly, It is a southern European vernacular feature linked with the roman empire. While it was more common in official buildings during the roman times; it is now a vernacular feature in many places that were included in the roman empire. For quite simple reasons: when the empire collapsed many buildings were made with roman roofs (imbrex (half-rounded tile)+tegula) were destroyed and since then there have bee reclyclings of roman imbrex that became to be re-used in building vernacular houses in a more simple fashion; and then it became the main roof feature in vernacular architecture in many of these regions. The regions of northern Europe (north and east of the Rhine) were roman didn't had long lasting occupations never had this feature that still was tipically southern European. http://www.salvoweb.com/images/userimgs/2/BCA-tuiles-canal-Detail-1_23273_1.jpg Since centuries this kind of roofings is the dominant kind in vernacular architecture in most of southern European places, from Vendée to Andalucia and to Balkans and doesn't exist more northern than Lorraine. Inversely it rarely has been seen as a scholar feature; In South-western France and in many places of Spain the official, aristocratic and bourgeoise architecture often prefered the slate roofs, while rounded tiles were seen as the "normal" and popular housing feature.

" It is a long debate, but the "franco-provençal" dialects seems to share more features with the "langue d'oil" (phonology and morphology especially). '""

Franco-provençal is not closer to langue d'oil, it is considered to be in-between Oil and Oc languages; by the way both are Romance languages, like Spanish and Italian are... Concerning Auvergne and Limousin, their dialects are fully part of the Occitan family.

" I don't speak obviously about landscapes, climate or rural architecture of Savoy, Jura or Southern Burgondy who have nothing to do with southern Europe, but rather with Switzerland, Austria or Germany. "

You can't get out of your mind that southern Europe is not only the extreme and caricatural regions of Andalucia or Sicily. Landscapes and rural architecture of southern Burgondy is very similar to Piemonte region of Italy, Savoy has much more in common also with the neiboring Alpine Italian regions than anything else, including rural architecture. Italy has more Alpine architecture than Germany does by the way, and those Italian mountains have similar landscapes than its neiboring french regions. Concerning Auvergne and Limousin, their landscapes are not less southern European than the landscapes of the northern coast of Spain: Green valleys, dark forests, cows, fresh rivers, low skies, etc... but this is Spain, and it is at the same latitudes than Tuscany: http://www.jorgetutor.com/spain/asturias/asturias1.jpg http://bastian.blog.lemonde.fr/files/2007/07/asturias.1183711393.jpg http://www.notesfromspain.com/wp-content/uploads2/asturias11.jpg http://www.walking-holidays-spain.com/images/pasAsturiasCoast350.jpg http://maxalvarez.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/castropol.jpg

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.213.212.29 (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

"Regions with oceanic climate: Galician coasts, Asturias, Cantabria, Pais vasco... have even more "pure" oceanic climate than south-western France...that is Not mediterranean at all."

Completely wrong. According to Köppen classification, Galician coasts have a mediterranean climate (Csb). It is established that Galician coasts have dry summers (see the diagrams of A Coruna), though the hinterland is wetter. That's all. And Pais vasco or Asturias have the same climate as French Basque country  : mild winters and hotter summers - same temperatures in july in Biarritz and Santander -, but not hot enough to be classified in the subtropical zone. Do you want a link to the official weather websites, or are you able to see it alone ?

"and get the traditional products of oceanic areas such as cider instead of wine for exemple in the northern coast of Spain, the main dish there is fabada, a spanish version of cassoulet"

Who cares about cider or cassoulet ? They are not a feature to be classified as southern or northern.

"Inside Spain, especially the castillan plateau has not a mediterranean climate either, but a semi arid continental one"

Wrong. Madrid has the same climate as Orange in France (mean temperature 6° in january, 25° in july, and both are dry in summer).See the Köppen classification which confirms it.

"northern Italy (Po plains and mountains) have not mediterranean climates eit her."

Not mediterranean northern of the Po river, but subropical anywhay, due to the very hot summers (same temperature in july in Marseille and Milan), Cfa in Köppen classification.

"Rhône-Alpes have not an oceanic climate but a mediterranean climate in its southern part"

The whole of Rhône-Alpes has essentially an oceanic climate (semi-continental degradation). There is only a southern-thiny part which can be considered as mediterranean. The mountainous climate has not to be taken in count (there are mountainous climates in tropical areas too...).

"Auvergne and Limousin climates are largely marqued by mountainous and continental degradations and are far to the be typical oceanic climates that you seem to talk about."

Wrong. These areas (Limoges, Clermont-Ferrand, Le Puy...) have all a oceanic climate with a semi-continental degradation, excepted the mountainous areas.

"That said, oceanic climates are not found only in northern Europe (Germany, Netherlands, UK) as you seem to let thinking but are found in the oceanic areas of the Iberian peninsula (which is in southern Europe, no?)"

You always want to challenge the general by using the exception. So, I repeat more clearly : the whole of France, UK, Germany, Benelux...have an oceanic climate, while the whole of Southern Europe has a subropical climate, like it or not.

"north Portugal coast, Galicia, Asturias, Cantabria, Pais vasco also have oceanic climates"

You can repeat the same things, it won't give you right : Portugal has a mediterrean climate, idem for Galician coasts. Asturias or Pais vasco are less than 5 % in the Iberic peninsula.

"The "whole" of Italy doesn't have one unique climate"

The whole of Italy has a subtropical climate : dry subtropical in the 3/4 (mediterranean), and humid sutropical in the Po plain. Your link does not give any source, in the contrary of the academical and most recognized one in the encyclopedias : Köppen (http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/geography/100/koppen_web/kop-map-bit.bmp).

"I call Alpine Italy the area of The Alps that are situated in Italy"

Mountainous climate is not a criterium to distinguish the areas of the world : once again, you can find mountainous climate in tropical areas, simply because this climate does not depend of spatial conditions, but of altitude.

"Having a mediterranean climate doesn't mean having hot summers... Summers are often more hot in continental climates."

Completely wrong. In almost all mediterranean regions, the mean temperature of the summer are far hotter than any continental climate.

"Milan and the whole of the Po Plain has much colder winters than those found Marseille and mediterranean climates...it is usually classified as continental or sometimes as of a degradated "chinese type". "

The winters are not a criterium to separate subtropical zones and temperate zones. This is essentially the summer temperatures which counts in this aim. For Milan, certainly not continental. The winters are too mild, nothing to do whith the climates of Moscow or Montreal. And for the "chinese type", you have to know that it is the expression used to design the south-eastern chinese climate, a subtropical one...Just see the Köppen classification.

And like I have said, you want always to challenge the general by the exceptions. Milan does not represent all the northern Italy, and it is at the limit of the subtropical zone. Tuscany, Venitia or Liguria are in Northern Italy too.

"Lyon, Berlin and clermont-ferrand don't have the same climates"

They have all an oceanic climate (semi-continental degradation).

"If you compare winter's temperatures you will notice that northern Italian plains and in Alpine areas the winters are often colder than both Lyon's and Clermont-ferrand's"

Once for all : Lyon, Berlin or Clermont-Ferrand have an oceanic climate. The "semi-continental" degradation is just a nuance which does not challenge the two main oceanic temperature features : the mild winters (compared to continental zone) and the mild summers (compared to subtropical zone) + no dryness of course. Milan has the first (a mild winter), but not the second, because the summers are very hot. That's why Köppen (with probably other reasons) has decided to put the Po plain in subtropical zone.

"and you have big difficulties to understand they are fully part of southern Europe"

And you, you have big difficulties to understand that climatology does not exist to match to your desires, but to establish facts : Milan region (and not all the northern Italy) has colder winters than Provence, but the same summers temperatures. There is more difference between the climate of Clermont-Fd and Tuscany and even Milan, than between the climate of Clermont-Fd and Berlin. Just because of the summers. This is confirmed by Köppen, and you can put all your stereotypes, it won't change anything.

""half-rounded tiles" ("tuiles romanes" or "tuiles canal" in french) are a vernacular feature since much longer time than the modern times in Poitou, charentes, Vendée, most of Aquitaine and midi-pyrénées; and, like it or not it is a typical feature of southern Europe."

Completely false. The vernacular roofs of the whole of France (even SW France, Limousin or Charentes) were thatched roofs until the 18-19th centuries in the country-lands. In the towns or the cities, the tiles have been generalized in the late middle-age. So, you can't say that tiles are a vernacular feature.

"That's wrong. Lyon's vernacular architecture have nothing to see with London's or Frankfurt ones. In your dreams maybe. vernacular architecture that dates back much farther than the 19th century in Lyon's and Clermont-Ferrand areas"

You can't multiply your modern and chosen photos, but it does not change the following facts :

1. Vernacular architecture can be qualified by a lot of features. You have decided to make an obscession on the half-rounded tiles, because it corresponds to your desires, but there are many other features (the material of contruction, the structure of the farm, the style of the gables...).
2. You seem unable to understand what is diachrony : it is not because you see nowadays a feature, that this feature has been here since centuries. There are modern evolutions (by modern, I mean even one or two centuries).
3. I won't make a speech, but in contrary of what you said, the rural houses of Auvergne, Dauphiné, Limousin or even south-western France were essentially thatched cottages for centuries, like it or not. And they had - and have still in numerous areas - the same general structure in the whole of France, in England, Holland or Germany (often longhouses with an more or less archaic structure - I don't give details). We can even find archaic shapes in both France and Germany, or other common architectural features. Nothing to do with Mediterranean areas, and even your "Northern Italy".

"First, "tuiles romanes" are nowadays a tipical feature of southern European vernacular architecture"

Like you have said, it is a "nowadays" feature, not vernacular. Ancient low-classes had not the means to build with tiles. Like I have already said, tiles will be generalized in the country-lands only in the 19th century. I have sources, but I don't think it is necessary. It is a recognized fact by the professionals of architecture.

"Secondly, It is a southern European vernacular feature linked with the roman empire. While it was more common in official buildings during the roman times"

No. Roman tiles were a complex "assemblage" of imbrex and tegula (if I don't mistake, they still exist in some old italian cities). The half-rounded tiles are different and date from the early-middle age.

"it is now a vernacular feature in many places that were included in the roman empire...and since then there have bee reclyclings of roman imbrex that became to be re-used in building vernacular houses in a more simple fashion; and then it became the main roof feature in vernacular architecture in many of these regions."

Once again, no : first, like you have said, Roman tiles were different (imbrex + tegula). Second, it was not vernacular, but scholarly. And third, the half-rounded tiles existed too in the scholarly architecture of early-medieval Germany (even in the non-roman occupied areas), Holland and even England (I have sources and pictures, if you want).

And once for all :

• these tiles were used not for all the inhabitants, but only for monumental buildings until late middle age in the cities, and 19th century in the country lands.
• vernacular architecture has a lot of characteristics. Don't make an obsession with the half-rounded tiles which were not spread by the roman, but far later in the scholarly architecture of the romanic era. In fact, it is more a romanic feature than a romance one. Not the same thing.

"Inversely it rarely has been seen as a scholar feature; In South-western France and in many places of Spain the official, aristocratic and bourgeoise architecture often prefered the slate roofs, while rounded tiles were seen as the "normal" and popular housing feature."

Completely false and free assertions. Once again, the average inhabitant of the country land of temperate Europe had not the means to buy with tiles (in Mediterranean zones and "Northern Italy", it is a different schema for other reasons) : they live in what we call in french "CHAUMIERES". This last was THE REAL VERNACULAR FEATURE in France, even in SW France until the 19th century in the country-lands. And in contrary of what you say, in the 15th century, the half-rounded tiles were spread in the buildings of Toulouse or Le Puy, rich houses or poor houses. Not due to the Roman empire, but due to more recent phenomenons (you have problems of diachrony, I have already said it).

"Franco-provençal is not closer to langue d'oil, it is considered to be in-between Oil and Oc languages"

It is debatable. In the french wiki, it is considered in the same branche as the langues d'oil :

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langues_gallo-romanes

By the way, the inhabitants of Savoy or Lyon have not a southern accent, which can be a mean to distinguish occitan areas and the others.

"Landscapes and rural architecture of southern Burgondy is very similar to Piemonte region of Italy"

No. The whole of landscape of Southern Burgundy, due to the geology, is similar to Central Germany, a region of "low-old mountains" - I have not the exactly translation. For example, the Morvan, the Charolais or the Beaujolais regions "look alike" with regions of Hessland or Thuringe.

And for Southern-Burgundy architecture, you are completely wrong : in the whole of Southern Burgundy, the structure and the appearance of the farms are the same as the rest of Western Europe. And in the Burgundian Bresse, the farms have almost the same archaic structures and appearance as the Frisian ones in Northern Germany or Holland. There has been modifications in the material of the constructions and the functionnal disposition of the new building in the 19th century, but Southern Burgundy has nothing to do with Northern Italy.

"Savoy has much more in common also with the neiboring Alpine Italian regions than anything else"

Not really. In the middle-altitude, wood is far more spread in the traditionnal houses than in the Northern Italy regions (excepted in the very high altitude, where forest disappears). And in the low countries of Savoy, the structure of the farms (ancient or actual) presents almost the same schema as Germany or the whole of France.

"Concerning Auvergne and Limousin, their landscapes are not less southern European than the landscapes of the northern coast of Spain: Green valleys, dark forests, cows, fresh rivers, low skies, etc... but this is Spain, and it is at the same latitudes than Tuscany"

Once again, you use the exception to make a general assertion, by comparing a thiny part of Spain. Auvergne or Limousin landscapes are closer to German mittelgebirge, like it or not. It is like saying that the landscapes of the whole of France should be mediterranean just because there is a thiny mediterranean part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.161.136.39 (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Why so many bad modifications?? prejudice against France?

I notice that this article has changed towards views that exclude France in the definitions where that country abviously belongs, in both culture, language and geography. I try to bring new addings to correct that obviously volontary prejudice. Also, the climatic definition seemed to be rather selective: some areas without mediterranean climate (romania, bulgaria, bigs parts of Spain or Northern Italy are included in this "climatic" definition of southern Europe... but once again the person who has modified the article erase the references areas of similar climate in France, just because they are located in France... (even when they still are located clearly in the southern half of Europe: Rhone Valley, Midi-Pyrénnées, Auvergne, Limousin, south-west, etc...), in line with Italy. On one side of the Alps (because it is Italy the areas are included in the concept, when its transalpine areas, often with milder climate are excluded. Just because the author thinks that France, for obscure reasons shouln't be in any way southern European. I'll try to correct this unfair (and probably politically-oriented) bias. Also, there were once a serie of very good and instructive illustrations that showed about how can be defined teh concept following each point of view (geographic, mediterranean climate, moutains/relief, wine culture, Romance languages, relief, southern European roofings, etc). I can see that the person that removed all the illustrations that didn't followed his own biaised views (all the definitions that showed that France fully of in great part belong to southern Europe, and that seems to bother him.) - I'll try to find them again, they were very instructive and clear to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.174.127.3 (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

France in the definitions where that country abviously belongs, in both culture, language and geography

Obviously not, neither culture nor geography. And for the linguistic group (and not the "language"), it concerns only the origin of the vocabulary, French phonology having much more in common with the German or the Dutch languages.

similar climate in France...Rhone Valley, Midi-Pyrénnées, Auvergne, Limousin, south-west

Climatically, southern Europe is characterized by subtropical climates, ie the mediterranean and the humid subtropical one. Neither SW France nor Auvergne and Limousin belong to those climatic areas.

On one side of the Alps (because it is Italy the areas are included in the concept, when its transalpine areas, often with milder climate are excluded.

They are not obscure reasons. On "one side", the climate is humid subtropical (Cfa), and on the other side, it is oceanic (Cfb). See the academic sources.

geographic, mediterranean climate, moutains/relief, wine culture, Romance languages, relief, southern European roofings, etc

You have already posted above your same and never-ending arguments, and answers have been given. You can check them again.

For some personal reasons, you absolutely want to connect France with southern Europe by drawing up a list of chosen criteria, and without real knowledge of the subjects that you talk about. But WP is not a forum for each personal POV pushing. According to the sources, geographically, historically, sociologically and culturally, France is simply not a southern european country.--92.161.41.202 (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• That can be said about other countries. Portugal, Spain, France and Italy are a group though. It is not acceptable to put Portugal, Spain with the Balkans. I bet the reason for this mess is Greece, that has been grouped with the Southern Latin countries due to isolation in the Balkans, but all these countries... In which way Iberia is related to the Balkan countries? geographically? historically? sociologically? culturally? The issue here is not Southern Europe but the list of countries, which includes countries that have little relation with each other ---Pedro (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

France in the definitions where that country abviously belongs, in both culture, language and geography Obviously not, neither culture nor geography. And for the linguistic group (and not the "language"), it concerns only the origin of the vocabulary, French phonology having much more in common with the German or the Dutch languages.

Please look at "romance languages". French and the various other romance dialects that are or were traditionnally spoken in France are as much Romance language. It is far to refer only to the vocabulary, the whole french language and culture is an evolution of the vulgar roman culture and language as well as in Spain, Italy or Portugal. You could inform yourself, I'm sorry. French as nothing to do with Dutch and German. Not even speaking about other romance language of France such as Franco-Provençal, The different occitan dialects, Catalan...

similar climate in France...Rhone Valley, Midi-Pyrénnées, Auvergne, Limousin, south-west Climatically, southern Europe is characterized by subtropical climates, ie the mediterranean and the humid subtropical one. Neither SW France nor Auvergne and Limousin belong to those climatic areas. "

Inform yourself once again: Lyon (2nd/3rd french city), Toulouse (4th french city) are both classifyed as humid subtropical following Koppen classification. Marseille (2nd/3rd french city), Nice (5th french city), Toulon (10th french city) are of pure mediterranean climate. How a country which has 5 of its 10 biggest cities in a subtropical zone being completly excluded from "your" climatic definition. What is problematic in your vision is that this ultra-selective attitude applies only to France... It doesn't seem to bother you that Serbia or Bulgaria (which are not concerned at all by by any mediterranean cliamte would be included in the concept... If we shoose to apply restrictive criteriums we should apply them to all the countries, not only to France...

" On one side of the Alps (because it is Italy the areas are included in the concept, when its transalpine areas, often with milder climate are excluded. They are not obscure reasons. On "one side", the climate is humid subtropical (Cfa), and on the other side, it is oceanic (Cfb). See the academic sources. "

The academic sources are clear: Lyon has the same climate as the Italian cities situated at the same latitudes on the other side of the Pyrennes, please inform yourself better. Lyon has the exact same climate as Venice, and lie at the same latitude, and like Venice has a latin-based culture. There is no reason one to be in southern Europe and not the other... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyon#Climate

For some personal reasons, you absolutely want to connect France with southern Europe by drawing up a list of chosen criteria, and without real knowledge of the subjects that you talk about. But WP is not a forum for each personal POV pushing. According to the sources, geographically, historically, sociologically and culturally, France is simply not a southern european country.

That's simply wrong. Northern half of France is not in geographical southern Europe that's sure, but the southern half definitly is. Wikipedia can simply not ignore a whole half of a country just because it doesn't please one person. I thought Wikipedia was not a place to have agendas... France is not only Paris and its surroundings (for your information); 60% of the country lie at similar latitudes than Italy (if you don't agree with that, look at maps). If Those areas are not in southern Europe most of Italy (everthing that is north of Campania) is not eiter. you canno't have two weights: One for any country, and one for France and another for the other European countries. If not having all the areas under climates classified as sub-tropical is something that must exclude a whole country, even the area that does have these climate, then you should apply this extreme criterium to the rest of the countries, and exclude Spain, Italy, All Balkans, maybe even Greece to southern Europe. I remind you that an ecnyclopedia is supposed to be scientific, and not made with the goal to please one point of view, whatever it is. A good part of France is without any doubt in southern Europe all criteriums, You just can't do as if half of a country did not existed. I'm sorry but denying this is leading a very un-encyclopedic process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.140.141.200 (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

A biological problem

Most of the above (maybe all ... I lost the will to wade through all of it) is political and cultural, sensu lato (e.g. building styles). The problem is that the article also has biological and ecological importance. Many articles discussing the distribution of species (e.g. the Jersey tiger moth) link to this one, and the person who follows the link will be misled when they are told "definitively" that southern France (for example) is not included. All of France south of the Massif Central is biologically Southern Europe.

To cut a long story short, the definition of Southern Europe depends on the purposes for which it is being discussed. For ecology, France is part Southern and part Northern. Why cannot a country be split? --Wally Tharg (talk) 08:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

All of France south of the Massif Central is biologically Southern Europe.

Wherever you get your information from you are wrong. The truth is that: All of France south of the river Loire is biologically Southern Europe.

Indeed, other than Paris, most of sub-Loirean France has been longer and more Frenchlike than above the river Loire.

Take away the following and there is hardly any historically 'true' France left - Brittany, Flanders from the river Somme all the way up, Elsass-Lothringen, English Flanders, Lots of Picardy like Noyon, Lands annexed off the Belgium Walloons and suchlike, Land wapentook off the Luxemburgers, Normandy, note also an whopping chunk of northern France - the Champagne region has always been like an empty buffer zone asundering true Northern Europeans from the 'Northern French' or one could say the non-Sub-Loirean French. Sub-Loirean France is by far the greater share of France.

Bytheway, I see the wiki spellchecker redflagged the words: "Elsass-Lothringen", indeed, a creepy amount of internet spellcheckers seem wont to needlessly 'redflag' perfectly correct Germanic English words. Without shadow, definitely an agenda too it, mayhap Zionists up to their social-engineering and corrupting of other folks culture and bonds. Go see for yourselves... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:411:1600:226:8FF:FEDC:FD74 (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

response from the UN

Seeing all the spats about European sub-divisions (Europe is quite small for dividing!), I have decided to contact the UN and as what they think abou the fact that their geoscheme is so extensively used on Wiki. This is what I received:

Dear xxxxx,

Thank you for your email.

The geographical groupings used by the United Nations Statistics Division follow the M49 Standard for Area Codes for Statistical use, details of which can be found here: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49.htm

The designations employed and the presentation of material at this site do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The assignment of countries or areas to specific groupings is for statistical convenience and does not imply any assumption regarding political or other affiliation of countries or territories by the United Nations.

"Regions" are so drawn as to obtain greater homogeneity in sizes of population, demographic circumstances and accuracy of demographic statistics (another example is Russia -- it is in the continent of Asia but it belongs in the Eastern Europe "region"). This nomenclature is widely used in international statistics but it is by no means universal.

I hope this is useful.

Best regards,

The UN Demographic Yearbook Team.

It seems Wikipedia abuses the geoscheme, while there is actually an openly proposed geoscheme by the Geographical sub-division: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/ungegn/docs/23-gegn/wp/gegn23wp48.pdf --131.251.133.25 (talk) 11:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Excellent email response, in my opinion. I also think the UN statistical division of Europe should not be used in Wikipedia as it is simple not a barometer of defining the boundaries of Europe. If nobody responds to this in the next couple of days, I'll have the UN section removed from this article. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

kosovo is listed as a country, which is a dubious claim

listing kosovo as a 'country' of southern europe is dubious at best

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_Kosovo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.108.254 (talk) 11:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

turkey is not in europe

so since my last message was removed for being too "vulgar" and attacking wally tharg. i'll say this as nicely as i can. turkey is not in europe so please get it right. it is definitely! not in southern europe. turkey is in the middle east(asia) or west asia, only 3% is further than west asia but no way is it in europe. you could however say, it is NEAR east europe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.74.199.31 (talk)

First of all, please sign your comments next time. Secondly, please don't insult other Wikipedia members next time or you may be blocked from editing. Don't insult anyone or anything, for that matter. Thirdly, your view regarding Turkey is your personal opinion and has no place in an encyclopedia. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

November 30 edit request

Can someone add Bulgaria to the 'Turkic Languages' list, under 'Small Communities'? Thanks. AuditoreEzio (talk) 01:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Some questions about Turkey

Why did you guys omit Turkey and Turkish people in almost every part of this article? What I mean:
Why didn't you add the population of European Turkey in the population section?
Why did you exclude Istanbul in the largest urban areas section?
Why doesn't Ataturk International Airport exist in the busiest airports list?
Why didn't you add Turkish language in the languages list? Turkish language has about 12 million speakers in European Turkey alone. In addition to that, there are significant numbers of Turkish speakers in the other Southeastern European countries too. Such as Turks of Western Thrace, Turks of Bulgaria, Turks of Romania, Turks of Kosovo, Turks of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Turks of Croatia, Turks of Montenegro and also Turkish Cypriots (Even though Cyprus isn't geographically Europe at all, the article refers to it as a Southern European country, and you added the Greek Cypriots to the total number of Greek speakers in Southern Europe. So then, you have to consider the Turkish Cypriots as a South European population as well.)
"Additionally, there are countries in the eastern part of Southern Europe (e.g., Bosnia, Albania), where Islam is widely practiced." Again, no mentioning of Turkey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.146.21.232 (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Sub-Loirean France is definitely Southern Europe

Weather you like it or not (:

OK lets talk about this here. I agree with you, partially. The current version is ok to me: Since France is fully within Western europe, it is ok to indicate South France (Only southern France) within SouthWestern Europe. This is a common point of view: just look at this page: Northwestern Europe .

Barjimoa (talk) 09:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

For me, the whole of France south of the river Loire should be considered within Southern Europe. Indeed, the Loire river is recognised (in many learned fields) as acting as a natrual geographical border in many sundry ways. Another telling point to weigh up, is that the borders of France (relatively recently) sat a good deal further south. Mindseye the borders of French without Brittany, Flanders spreading down to the Somme, and Elsass-Lothringen and bits annexed from Walloonia/Luxembourg/Ardennes. Anyway, thanks for chipping in Barjioma and hope you find use for the term: "Sub-Loirean France" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.121.254.236 (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

France

@Julio188red What are you doing? Did you really need to mass revert several edits to remove one line of text? Regardless, it has been included for a long time. Discuss before making changes. Rob984 (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello i am french of southern france and we are not south european boy and we don't have the same climate of southerne europe i know what is the southern europe and south france isn't southern europe it is the occidental europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julio188red (talk • contribs) 18:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC) South france is not the same climate of italy (north o south) o spain o greece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julio188red (talk • contribs) 18:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The point is that Southern France can actually be considered part of Southern Europe. There are a lot ot countries listed both within Western Europe and Southern Europe. Please stop reverting cause you are making disruptive edits (putting Malta and Monaco in the Italian peninsula, or listing Corse twice etc. etc.) Barjimoa (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Julio188red a procedural note: I have reverted your changes until a consensus is reached here on the talk page per WP:BRD. This gives everyone a chance to comment on the proposed changes. Vrac (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)z

Comment on the content issue: the Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology, a well-cited source, includes southern France in the definition of southern Europe. Vrac (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

OECD, UN, CIA, Eurovoc and all international organisations are ranking France as a western country and not a southern one. It can't be allowed to divide a country into different section, otherwise, that would lead to a massive redesigning of the European map. Shall we cut Italy into a Central European country for the north, and a southern one, same for Germany, northern or central or western, let's cut it in three parts... All the map included in the article are furthermore placing France the same category. One cannot change the classification without real sourcing from a neutral and reliable source. In all the international classifications France is not a southern.country, not is is divided in different parts.--Gabriel HM (talk) 01:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I confess that I don't understand your argument. Southern Europe is not an administrative division; as the article explains it is a grouping made on different levels, none of which are official. Splitting up a country makes no difference in this context, it is a grouping made for intellectual purposes. Note that the article splits northern and southern Italy. As for OECD or CIA ranking France as a western country, those classifications aren't relevant to this grouping. Isn't Spain considered a western country by the OECD? Isn't Spain considered part of southern Europe? As for your comment on sourcing, I cited one above but you appear to have missed it so here it is again: [1]. Vrac (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Gabriel, I dont see the problem. Not all of France is listed. I agree with Vrac (talk): Southern Europe is not an administrative division. It is already allowed to divide a country into different sections. Germany is listed both in Western Europe and Central Europe. Northern Germany is included in Northern Europe. Central Europe and North Italy. Russia is clearly both in Eastern Europe and Northern Asia despite what the UN map says. It is full of examples. Barjimoa (talk) 06:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Barjimoa, please name several recognised sources such as OECD, UN, CIA, etc to justify your assertion. I just need real sourcing.--Gabriel HM (talk) 11:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The source Vrac provided is enough. Those classification (CIA UN OECD) are not the only relevant to this grouping. For what concerns cultural regions, for example, just look at the European regions as proposed by Ständiger Ausschuss für geographische Namen (StAGN). BTW why did you change the article before the discussion ended?

Barjimoa (talk) 11:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh and isn't Southern Europe also known as Mediterranean Europe? And It is pretty obvious that Southern France is part of Mediterranean Europe. Barjimoa (talk) 13:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Why one can only find maps of Europe with overly spaced-out latitude lines...

I think there is some rigged built-in clauses where lots of UN buildings/HQs/confrenses HAVE TO be conducted within France!

I think there is also something like a (guideline/law) about the use of the wording: "Northern" anent describing and showing Europe nations. Done to make France not seem so 'Southern'

Another weird thing I have come up against (to do with the aforesaid), is finding maps of Europe with decent amount of latitude lines. The spaces between latitude lines on maps of Europe are far to much spaced-out. Again, I believe this is engineered to make France seem somehow just to the west of Germany when in fact it lies (as a whole) much further to the south of Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.121.254.236 (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Most are based on equal area polar stereographic projections (such a this) which have had their longitude–latitude lines removed. Because they are centered on Germany, they make countries such as France and England look further north than they are. I'm pretty such this has caused misconceptions, which are now deeply engraved unfortunately. I'm trying to replace them with orthographic projections, for example File:Europe orthographic Caucasus Urals boundary (with borders).svg and File:EU-France.svg. These hopefully show the curvature of the Earth, thus not misleading the viewer. Rob984 (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hullo there. I thought England/Britain looked less north than it actually is compared to Europe. Indeed, most would think Berlin is way more northern than London but in fact Berlin would sit somewhere betwixt London and Luton.

What noone will be able to find on the whole wide internet is a map of Europe bearing 'near-set' spaced latitude lines - say something useful like 20 or even 40 mile gaps between each latitude line. What there is, is so far overly spaced-out it doesn't do justest to how much further south the bulk of France sits. All by design folks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.121.254.236 (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Cities by latitude show France as very southern set

Look how much further south French cities are compared to Ireland/Britain/Belgium/Netherlands/Luxemburg/Germany/Denmark...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_latitude — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.121.254.236 (talk) 23:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Vultures share the same habitats they find in France and Spain

Weather and habitat seems alike enough for vultures which be very exotic animal by northern European standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.75.50 (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure of course, these is no culture in Germany 😂 [2], and the Bearded vulture, is not present in Autria and Bavaria... In your obession about anything French, your assertions are more and more biased. I shall warn you that insults and depreciation of people or country is forbidden in WP [3]. (Your comments about the frenchs compared to monkeys, and much more). WP is not built to express your obsession of French speaking peoples on the talk pages.--Gabriel HM (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Economic Crisis

This article has nothing about the modern economic crisis, or PIGS.Greeninventor999 (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in definitions

There seem to be a few discrepancies throughout the article regarding inclusion of different countries, and the largest cities lists. I know there's ongoing debate about France's inclusion (I for one think that the southern part should be included, certainly, for many reasons, e.g. cultural, geographic, linguistic, etc.). The Occitan areas in particular, and the Riviera/Marseille/Nice definitely should be included; they're even more south than some of the northernmost parts of Italy. But it's not included in the population lists. And the Balkan area is also subject to debate. On a geographic basis, it should be, but culturally it differs a lot from other parts of "Southern Europe", aside from Greece and perhaps to an extent some areas of the Adriatic coast like Dalmatia and Albania.

And what should be done with Romania? It's generally regarding as being part of "Southeastern Europe" for a variety of reasons, but not often included in "Southern Europe" proper, even if various South Slavic countries sometimes are (and I'll admit it sounds strange to do so). I guess it's kind of on the border-line of it, and occupies a fuzzy place in this whole concept. Including the entire country is too much, but the southern regions, like Wallachia and Dobrogea, may be worth considering. Geographically, it's also somewhat confusing. While often referred to as a "Balkan" country, especially for cultural and ethnic reasons, the peninsula is often defined as the areas south of the Danube. However, drawing a line from the northeast corner of the Adriatic to the northwest corner of the Black Sea to create a true peninsula, in a technical sense, would include the southern part of the country, roughly corresponding to the old Wallachia region, south of the Carpathians. There are also some cultural differences between north and south, with a gradual change. Dobrogea near the Black Sea, however, is considered part of the peninsula even under the strict definition, and the region does have a somewhat more southern-leaning aspect to it, due to its history.

The country as a whole speaks a Romance language, and has a few aspects of cultural elements more characteristic of southern Europe, such as popularity of wine and a very long history of making it; however, in other ways it has an Eastern European kind of culture as well, including an Orthodox religion, but the same could be said of Balkan Slavic countries (there is also a Catholic minority). It mostly fits into the Balkan cultural sphere overall, in terms of things like cuisine, culture, music, folk traditions/dress, etc, having received some Ottoman influences like its southern neighbors. Transylvania has, due to its history, many Central European elements overall and architectural influences. There is also an ethno-linguistic tie with various minority communities of Vlachs in the southern Balkans as well. Overall there is a unique blend of elements that makes the Balkan region rather distinct. Another problem is Moldova, which is often grouped with Romania due to speaking the same language; however, going that far is too much of a stretch, since the culture there becomes noticeably more typically Eastern European, and it was part of the Soviet Union. Either way, Bucharest, which is fairly close to the southern border of the country near Bulgaria, has a population of around 2 million, which is larger than some of the others listed. Depends on if one wants to include it (technically, it's further south geographically than Belgrade, not to mention Zagreb and Ljubljana). Geopolitical definitions also influence things: France is often grouped into western Europe traditionally, and Romania and Bulgaria into Eastern Europe, especially in the Cold War definition because of the alignment of these states within the Eastern Bloc (as opposed to Tito of Yugoslavia going in a different direction, despite Communism). I'm not really favoring a particular course of action; just thought I'd throw some ideas in. Word dewd544 (talk) 05:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I strongly agree on that point : "The Occitan areas in particular, and the Riviera/Marseille/Nice definitely should be included". I can't understand how one may consider the mediterranean coast of France being not southern Europe but may consider northern Italy to be part of this area...That's an evidence, not only geographically, but also culturally and historically... Marseille have much more in common with others mediterraneans cities than with northern french or european cities Matieu Sokolovic (talk) 12:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I know the French are very much wannabe northern Europeans (and the French/Francophones are always spiking in French stuff into Germanic/northern European/English-speaking wikis) but sadly for the insecure French, rightfully all of Sub-Loirean France should be included has southern Europe. Southern Europe starts south of the river Loire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.88.45 (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I do not agree with that comment. Most french people, as I do, tend obviously to associate much more with our southern neighbours than our northern ones. latin language and cultural heritage, catholic religion, way of life, mentality, approach to state, society and economy... And obviously the geographical localisation of the whole 2/3 south of the country with lie at the same latitudes as Italy, and not just the "riviera" as some say. Just have a look to maps to understand that even central french cities like Lyon, Clermont-Ferrand, Limoges lies at northern Italian latitudes of Venice, Milan or Turin. Southern french cities such as Bordeaux, Toulouse, Marseille, Nice, Toulon, Montpellier are in line with central Italy (and not just northern Italy as some said). Perpignan is as far south as Lazio. The southernmost metropolitan french point as far south as Poggia in Puglia region of southern Italy... In the same time, the northermost points of France (Dunquerke, Lille) hardly fit the middle of Germany, and are almost totally further south as teh southernmost points of Britain or Netherlands... which many people tend to lump with France despite having cultural and ethnical big differences with France. I don't understand this obsession (mostly from northern Europeans) of trying to systematically associate France with northern Europe. That is a mystery for me and for most french people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.152.115.210 (talk) 10:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Cities

Considering that population of the urban area of Belgrade is 1,233,796, and considering that this ranking have been made withe the population of the urban area (not the cities population, not the metropolitan area...) I had removed Belgrad and added Marseille at the 9th position (It seems to me absolutely impossible not to consider Marseille as a southern europe city btw. Matieu Sokolovic (talk) 10:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Southern Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150910072258/http://www.cartileonline.eu/carte/1025738/dragan-brujia-vodia-kroz-svet-vizantijeDragan to http://www.cartileonline.eu/carte/1025738/dragan-brujia-vodia-kroz-svet-vizantijeDragan

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Southern Switzerland is southern Europe

Canton of Ticino is southern Europe as this link and others clearly show. It is in the Mediterranean basin.Also Rhone and Danube basins are so.An area is classified geographically by mountais and so its basin. If nobody answers article wil be correctly restored.Maxim3377 (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

References

@Maxim3377: The text you've cited is a book on hydrology, which is not a great source for information about geopolitics. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

User talk:WikiDan61Other ref. I can find much more.If you use culture method in canton of Ticino people have Italian culture.All criteria set Ticino in south Europe.You answered just trollying.Now i've valid sources.Time to change article correctly.You've to show the opposite now or i'll update.And what would you use to define physical geography?Let me know this news).Maxim3377 (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with WikiDan61. Your claims are WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Either you find a reliable source that explicitly states that southern Switzerland is in SE, or you do not add anything. Also some advice, if you start edit-warring so soon after getting blocked, chances are you will get blocked again. And a reminder to be WP:CIVIL: Don't accuse other editors of trolling. Dr. K.

References

User talk:Dr.K.Some people agree with me about Ticino is southern Europe and it isn't an original research.Now 3 valid references (also in this one Ticino is reported in the Mediterranean basin) and no references to oppose.Don' t thread and don't talk about form.Let's talk about the subject. See Ticino talkAnd now?Maxim3377 (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

References

This discussion is now moot as the only proponent of including Switzerland in Southern Europe has been blocked as a sock puppet. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Eastern Thrace but not southern France ?

Is there a good reason for having removed southern France from this article ? How is it possible to think that a city like Marseille and an island like Corsica aren't part of Southern Europe while cities like Turin or Milan would be part of it ? If you put just a part of Turkey (Eastern Thrace !), I cannot understand why you could not put a part of France, at least the regions bordering the mediterranean sea (Corsica, Provence, Languedoc) --Matieu Sokolovic (talk) 08:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Southern France is obviously part of Southern and Mediterranean Europe, as all sources indicate. A British francophobe on this Talk page insisted that France below the Loire river should be considered part of Southern Europe, this doesn't match the usual definitions of Southern France though and moreover it'd put Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, etc. within Southern Europe. The correct definition of Southern France as in the corresponding article is the area below Marais Poitevin: roughly below 45.5°. I've updated the map accordingly. Dyadique78 (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Urban areas

It seems there is some problems with the density indicated for most of the cities. Density of all of them seems to have been calculated with the inner city superficie but with the urban area population, wich result in very high density, not representative of the reality. For example, Athens is presented with an urban area population of 3,484,000 (wich is btw not the same figure in the main article on the city wich indicate 3,090,908 inhabitants for the urban area) and a density of 3600hab/km². The superficie of the Athens urban area is 7,500km², wich would be roughly 450hab/km² with 3,484,000 inhabitants (and 410hab/km² if we use the same figure used in the city main article). The same error is repeated for every city in the classement (included difference between the population indicated here and the population in city main article... There is a difference of 3,000,000 inhabitants for Milan !), except Marseille, which I've added recently. Matieu Sokolovic (talk) 07:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Binksternet

Binksternet It is not you who re-invent the definition of southern Europe--81.67.166.149 (talk) 10:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

VANDALISM OF TU-nor

TU-nor he erases important parts of the article like others whose reality they don't like. He gives himself the right to censor at will as he has a little power on wikipedia--81.67.166.149 (talk) 08:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

PROBLEM OF CENSUR

big problem with some user who intentionally censors the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.67.166.149 (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

controversial

Hello everybody. I think it's better to leave both versions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batman06400 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus and Cyprus

I believe if Cyprus is to be included in Southern Europe, Northern Cyprus should also be included or they should be both removed since the two states are both on the same island. Although Northern Cyrpus is a state with limited recognition, that is not a valid reason to exclude Northern Cyprus in my opinion. It may not have the recognition it's southern sibling has but it still exists as a separate political entity therefore it should be included. It is noteworthy enough for such a page if Cyprus is to be included. It's limited recognition can also be briefly mentioned in the notes. The page should merely acknowledge its existence which makes up the 36 percent of the island. I would appreciate any other perspectives on this matter. 176.88.47.54 (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion on this subject is here and here. There are three problems, the 176.88.47.54 cannot understand the basic issues. First: on Wikipedia we do not add unrecognized states to articles (like as recognized countries). In accordance with international standards and international law, Northern Cyprus is part of the Republic of Cyprus. I know - they work on a principle of "state in state" however, governance methods are not an indicator. There are many autonomous regions and even republics in the state (for example Republics of Russia), there are also many self-proclaimed states - they don't matter, the same as Northern Cyprus. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, in other encyclopedias also such standards are used. Second: the issue of inserting Cyprus into the article is controversial (few sources show Cyprus as part of southern Europe, however, this is already Asia on border with Europe), this is the maximum acceptable controversy, let's not extend the problem to an even more debatable problem like Northern Cyprus (self-proclaimed state, not recognized by other countries and UN, they are ordinary separatists). Third: there are no reliable sources showing that Northern Cyprus lies in Southern Europe. To sum up: there is neither need, nor justification, nor sources. 176.88.47.54: stop acting like a child. Maybe it's not fair to you, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we rely on official facts and sources. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 12:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

IP edits

Dear IP,

I asked you to use talk page, present your claims here. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC))

official maps

European climate. The Köppen-Geiger climates map is presented by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and the Global Precipitation Climatology Center of the Deutscher Wetterdienst. We can see the natural borders of the mountain ranges of the Alps, Pyrenees, and Balkans.

Regions of Europe based on CIA World Factbook:

  Northern Europe

  Western Europe

  Central Europe

  Southwest Europe

  Southern Europe

  Southeast Europe

  Eastern Europe

European sub-regions according to EuroVoc:

  Northern Europe

  Western Europe

  Southern Europe

  Central and Eastern Europe

Subregions of Europe (UN geoschme)

Part of the world (UN geoschme)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.67.153.44 (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello everybody. I don't want to conflict with you but can you stop putting subjective maps on the page and leave the official maps ? Why cut France in two? And why are you putting France in Southern Europe ??? France has neither the climate nor the southern European culture. Nobody puts France in southern Europe. Otherwise we make a chapter at the end of the article "the French vision of southern Europe" why not, but we cannot cut countries in two and put personal ideas. Southern europe is not an idea, many maps are official. So even the historical maps or the Spanish-Italian-Portuguese alliances against the Ottomans and the Germanic populations of the Franks during the Holy League (1571). Delete official maps and install maps made by a wikipedia user. It's called disinformation. I think you can understand that here it is better to leave the official cards. I'm not looking for anything other than to write the truth.--81.67.153.44 (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring over this. You are already in breach of Wikipedia policy and in serious danger of being blocked for being disruptive. I doubt that is your intention and I'd advise you to establish consensus here before further edits.

My take on this is that this is an article about Southern Europe. It is not an article about countries in Southern Europe. It is therefore perfectly possible for part of France to be included in it. Part of France has a Southern European climate. I'm not sure how you'd defined Southern European culture (it seems too diverse to be defined), but if it were, part of France would be in it.

Other than that, the definition is not set in concrete and I'm not sure that any map can be declared "official". There is surely room for all aspects to be included. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello everybody,

- No official map places France in the south of Europe. - the climates map is a scientific map, it is not me who invented it. Currently it is 0 ° celsius in the south of France. - Historically France has never been included in the south of Europe. It never made an alliance with the countries of southern Europe but fought them. - I'm French myself so I know what I'm talking about when I say that culturally France has nothing to do with the countries of southern Europe. For example, the cuisine of the south of France has nothing to do with that of the countries of the south. She was recently influenced by Italian immigration but suddenly we can not say that pizza has become French.--81.67.153.44 (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Obviously the definition depends on multiple aspects, and no one attribute can be said to be defining. What is the temperature in the north of Italy? Didn't Italy fight Greece in WWII? Portuguese cuisine surely differs from Slovenia. Doesn't Slovenia lie north of southern France? Yet your official maps has them all in Southern Europe. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, copy-pasting the same dubious claims does not lead anywhere, and no further changes should be made on the article without explicit consensus here, including the agreement of all participants of the discussion.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC))

Agree with KIENGIR, and I also want to point out that it is very misleading to say that these edits are "just about maps". It is also about editorializing comments in the captions, unsourced and pseudo-sourced statements, addition/removal of images, bloating the article with language data even though there is a main article which has these figures, and airports and... –Austronesier (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello everyone, The Alps are an important ethno-cultural border, rare have been the genetic flows between the two sides of the Alps (France, Germany, Austria on one side and the Italian peninsula on the other). For example, the migrations and the population of the Neolithic revolution took place through Asia Minor for southern Europe and spread much later to the rest of Europe. That is to say that the population went through Greece, Italy then the islands of Sardinia-Corsica, the Balearic Islands and finally the Iberian peninsula. This settlement took place by sea and not via the Alps. The climate map also shows that the countries of southern Europe have a very specific climate. The culture there is completely different. For example in France there is a big independentist movement in Corsica, same in Nice and Perpignan. The cuisines, the languages, the mentalities are totally different. So this only affects very few areas in France, and not the whole of southern France. In addition, the maps drawn up are official and cannot be contested on wikipedia, unlike a map which would cut France in two without reflection and without worrying about the problems mentioned above.--81.67.153.44 (talk) 11:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you know why we call the "French riviera"? When this area was annexed by France in 1860, it was highlighted that the climate was different from the south of France because it was protected by the Mistral and Tramontane Alps. The climate of Nice was equivalent to that of northern Italy and therefore had a blue sky like the sea even in winters: "the French Riviera" or " cote d'azur". So yes the climate in the north of Italy is completely different from that of the south of France. In climatology it is not a question of saying which region is further south than the other. So New York is almost on the same parralel as Madrid, yet can we say that it is the same climate. To answer questions, Slovenia is a Slavic country and therefore its cuisine has nothing to do with Portuguese cuisine, except the Mediterranean coast where the population is Italian. Italian is a regional language for the Mediterranean part.--81.67.153.44 (talk) 11:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)?

Just stop edit-warring and don't do further modifications to the article without consensus.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC))

Hello KIENGIR, the problem is that it's not up to you to define what should and should not be written. The map you created is problematic because it is unofficial and only reflects your personal opinion. I remind you that wikipedia is a free library and that all elements must be sourced, official and scientific. Your personal opinion has no place here. If you are against official cards, no problem discuss the problem here. You erase official cards by saying you don't agree ... when your agreement doesn't really matter if the cards are official. And what I'm having trouble with is not that you erase those cards but put your cards that you created like nothing happened. Understand that the vandalism here is you doing it. In addition, I have absolutely nothing to delete from the initial text. Why do you force your card when it was not part of the initial article--81.67.153.44 (talk) 10:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, you've been numerous times told - as well by others - the situation. No WP:CONSENSUS, and contrary what you state in the edit log, edit-warring is defined by our rules, and your are doing it, despite the several warnings (and I did not "create" any map). That said, all the consequences of your actions is on you.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC))

Hello KIENGIR and thank you for discussing. In that case, why not say what exactly the problem is, because you are deleting official maps for no reason. In addition you swipe a very subjective card that was not part of the previous versi. I am simply asking for an explanation from your company and especially why you insist on putting the card that you have created ? The map you add is fake, subjective, and cuts a country in half without any thought. I think instead of removing everything say what's wrong and then we'll remove those parts. Note that Southern Europe is clearly defined and that no user can redefine this geographical area according to his vision. I am not looking for anything other than to put things concrete and not subjective ramblings. Understand that it is not possible to put false maps.--81.67.153.44 (talk) 14:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@81.67.153.44: 1) Your comment Note that Southern Europe is clearly defined is completely erroneous. As with all other articles about "X-ern Europe", there is a plethora of different possible definitions and delimitations. 2) There exists no official maps of Southern Europe (or any other "X-ern Europe"). For these reasons, the infobox can not have a map that claims to be well-defined map. Neither can it have a list of countries claiming to be well-defined. It can also not give numbers for area or population, and it can not give a list of official languages. In short, this article should not have an infobox at all. This has been discussed several times regarding other "X-ern Europe" articles, and the conclusion has always been: These regions are not well-defined and can therefore not be presented with the accuracy that an infobox indicates. --T*U (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay so you know better than the United Nations, the CIA or any other organization ?? This is what I wanted to know. The cards displayed above are however very true. Do not confuse "you don't know" and "the world doesn't know". But I have no problem with it. It's just that you can't erase official maps and replace them with a fake map. Just in this case to be logical with what you are saying, you cannot put a map decided by a wikipedia user. You just have to talk and explain why you are doing this, it's very simple. The United Nations map has been removed. Does it pose a problem if I return this card without comment ?--81.67.153.44 (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

As I said, there are no "official maps" of Southern Europe, and there cannot be, since it is not a well-defined region. As for the "United Nations map", it is made on the basis of the UN geoscheme. Please read the Wiki article about the geoscheme, especialy the section "Usage". Then you will learn that the geoscheme has no pretention of being an official categorisation, but is only used for statistical convenience. Other parts of the UN uses other categories for their convenience. --T*U (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC) @81.67.153.44: Forgot to ping! --T*U (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree about the problems raised as well by the other editors, and that's enough, 81.67.153.44, you should stop WP:SEALIONing.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC))

Hello TU-nor, I will stop but I will answer you just on your comment. First of all, I will repeat it to you as well, but it is not for you to define what is official or not, especially when you don't know what you are talking about. Climate maps clearly show the difference between the countries of Europe. The maps representing the gene flow between the Mediterranean and European populations also show this. And finally, don't take global charities that make maps for fools. Especially when you do not understand the subject. I will have tried to explain how the Alps acted in the climate and the genetic flows causing all these ethnic, cultural and climatic diversities on the European continent. --81.67.153.44 (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@81.67.153.44: Please focus on content, not on editors, and avoid personal comments like you don't know what you are talking about and you do not understand the subject. Regarding climate, it is not suitable for putting whole countries into categories. The map seems to indicate that there are larger differences inside France than between southern France and other parts of the Mediterranian coast. Some examples from the Köppen–Geiger classification scheme: Marseille and Nice are placed in Köppen class Csa (Mediterranean hot summer) together with Valletta, Rome, Barcelona, Lisbon, Monaco, San Marino, Athens, just to mention a few relevant cities; Lyon and Toulouse are placed in Cfa (Humid subtropical climates) together with Split, Belgrade, Tirana, Venice and others; Paris, Lille and Bordeaux are clearly not Mediterranian, but are still placed in Cfb with Bilbao and Zagreb. How this can be used to decide whether or not to place entire countries into "Southern Europe" is beyond me. And climate is just one factor. There is no way to "prove" that country X is in southern Europe and country Y is not. It will depend on which classification to use and for what purpose. --T*U (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, by the way: What on earth are the "global charities" you mention? --T*U (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

ok, I see that you do not know, the climatology map does not represent the temperatures but the climate (humidity, sunshine etc ...). Moreover, Nice and Marseille do not have the same temperature, Nice being in the Italian geographical area and is not under the influence of the Mistral or the Tramontane. You write that Lyon and Toulouse are Cfa except that is false. Lyon and Toulouse are Cfb, it's Oceanic climate. Which has nothing to do with subtropical climates. Let's be a little serious please. I am French and Bordeaux or Toulouse do not have a Mediterranean climate. I take time to answer you in addition. It is necessary to make the differences in shade of color. In addition, I myself am from Marseille and I can tell you that the weather is not the same in Marseille and in Nice. And that there is no subtropical climate in France. And so even the climate map approves the official maps of southern Europe. Moreover the climate is not just a factor. No classification puts France in southern Europe, neither climatically, neither genetically nor historically. Ah sorry for my english, "global charities", I wanted to talk about organizations like the CIA or the United Nations. And also for my comments above which were not intended to be frowned upon.--81.67.153.44 (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I see that you are probably right about Toulouse and Lyon. In different sources I find both Cfa and Cfb, but Cfb is probably most used. That does not, however, change anything of what I wrote above. (Also, I know of course perfectly well that climatology is more than temperature; I have not said one word about temperature. Please do not patronise me.) And again, as I have said, the UN does not have any "official" classification of regions. --T*U (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not "I'm probably right" but I'm right. And it's no shame not to know. I'll stop the discussion. I didn't want to be disparaging but also try to see where Belgrade is on a map before quoting its location. And yes, the official maps are you who define them I understood. However I hope that we can discuss other subject on another more interesting page. cordially,--81.67.153.44 (talk) 09:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Map

Hello everybody, The problem with the map put by KIENGIR is that it was created by a wikipedia user. This map is subjective and only represents the vision of KIENGIR. We cannot cut a country in two or cut Europe in two without any thought. This map was added recently and is causing problems. This map has nothing to do in the wikipedia page. We cannot forbid to display maps of world organizations and install a map made by a user on his own view of things.--81.67.153.44 (talk) 11:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@IP This is not "KIENGIR's map". KIENGIR only tries to maintain the status quo ante against undiscussed changes. There are more editors who disagree with your edits. –Austronesier (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Austronesier, thank you for taking the time to answer. The problem is that one cannot imposed a map that was created by a wikipedia user. This map is completely subjective and does not represent anything at all. It is in total disagreement with wikipedia principles and those that you told me. I understood what some users told me and I would not change anything without asking the opinion of the wikipedia community, however this must apply to everyone. I would like the page to remain serious. It is therefore preferable that there is no image in the header if no one agrees.--81.67.153.44 (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Concur with Austronesier.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC))

At no time can you install an image that comes out of nowhere and impose it on the page. This is against the principles of wikipedia.--81.67.153.44 (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The argument by IP81.67 that the map cannot be used because it was created by a Wikipedia user is, of course, just nonsense. The question is not who created the map, the question is which sources the map is based upon. As for any other content in Wikipedia, is has to adhere to the Wikipedia policy of verifiability, see WP:V. So let us take a look at the suggested maps:

• The green map File:Southern Europe - Broad definition.png is claimed to be "Regional map of Southern Europe". There is no source given on the file page at Commons, and no source has been presented in this article, so the map is not admissable in the present form. To include it, it would have to be given a caption that explains what definition of Southern Europe it represents, and that definition would have to be sourced.
• The blue map File:SouthernEurope-DarkBlue.png claiming to show "Southern European countries" has exactly the same problems, so the same conclusion is applicable here.
• There are several other possible maps at Commons, like File:Southern Europe (Robinson projection).png, which at one point was attempted included. Same problem, same conclusion.
• In my opinion, the only solution is to use a map or picture showing the relevant area, but without any exact delimitation of which countries or parts of countries are included. This is the solution that has been chosen for other "X-ern Europe" articles, see articles Eastern Europe and Western Europe for examples.

Even if one or more maps could be shown to represent a specific definition that can be sourced, the discussion (and for that matter the whole article) clearly shows that no universal definition exists, so that no single map can be used to represent the "true" version of Southern Europe. However, there is absolutely room for a section in the main body of the article to discuss different definitions of Southern Europe. In such a section, several maps might be presented and discussed (with proper sourcing, of course). --T*U (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello everybody, I agree with TU-nor on what he says about the maps.
Now according to me, he problem is with the user KIENGIR. He tries to put a map created by a wikipedia user on the Southern Europe page. However, this card only represents this user. This map does not correspond to the geological, geographical or climatic map of Europe. It does not correspond to any world body like the United Nations, EuroVoc, CIA, etc ... This map also does not match historical or ethnic maps. It is therefore totally subjective. We cannot invent maps and install them on wikipedia. This map was created by a wikipedia user and represents their vision only. It would be necessary to put a map which regroups all the countries which are found in each time in the maps of the world organizations.--81.67.153.44 (talk) 09:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

One problem is that geological, geographical, climatic, historical and ethnic maps do not follow the borders between present-day countries. Many such maps are already presented, and more could be added, but they will only be valid within their own field. They can never be used to define the limitations of Southern Europe in general.

No "world organisation" has ever given any clear definition of what constitutes "Southern Europe" or any other "X-ern Europe", and they never will. The United Nations geoscheme has no pretention of being an official categorisation, but is only used for statistical convenience, as can be seen on their official web site here: The assignment of countries or areas to specific groupings is for statistical convenience and does not imply any assumption regarding political or other affiliation of countries or territories by the United Nations. The EuroVoc is a thesaurus to ensure consistent translations between official EU languages. They have grouped the countries for their own convenience. The CIA are hardly a "world organisation" with any defining power, and in any case, they have never submitted any map defining regions of Europe. The CIA maps used in Wikipedia have been created on the basis of descriptions in the CIA World Factbook, which are merely describing the location of countries, like Slovenia is described as positioned in "southern Central Europe" to give an example.

In any case, the UN, EuroVoc and CIA classifications do not coincide to any reasonable degree, so trying to make a definition based on these schemes is futile. --T*U (talk) 10:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I think TU-nor has said all that can said. The remaining problem is that a block-evading IP has nothing but ad hominem attacks against a regular editor in good standing. For my part it's DFTT. –Austronesier (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

So precisely the climatic, geological, ethnic or historical maps clearly show the distinction of the peninsulas constituting southern Europe. However, it would be better to remove maps made by wikipedia users, no matter the point of view. The maps of these world organizations cannot be put aside knowing that they also all define southern Europe in the same way. In reality all these maps come together, except the one that takes into account your personal opinion. It is precisely the personal opinion that has no place on a wikipedia page.--81.67.153.44 (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

maps of these world organizations ... all define southern Europe in the same way. False! --T*U (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@T*U. Is that so ?? Iberian Peninsula, italian Peninsula are part of southern Europe in all maps. And the balkan peninsula is put either in southern europe or in south eastern europe. Are you having a problem with the Balkan Peninsula ? It will be better if you define your problem.--81.67.153.44 (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Therefore the green map will be deleted, and the blue map still under discussion--81.67.153.44 (talk) 12:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

Following up the discussion above, I will suggest to remove the infobox altogether. The reason is simple: There is no real data to put into it. As with the map discussed above, the list of countries is dependent on a clear definition. As the list now stands, it is neither in line with the green map (Southern France, Monaco, Bulgaria) or the blue map (Corsica), or for that matter with the list in the lede sentence (Southern France, Corsica, Monaco, Romania). Lacking a definition of limitations, it does not make any sense to give numbers for area and population. As for languages, the same applies, and the current list is neither consistent with the green map (French and Bulgarian missing), nor with the list of countries (French in Corsica missing). Infoboxes have regularly been attempted introduced to other "X-ern Europe" articles, but they have always been rejected and removed. This one should go, too! --T*U (talk) 09:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree. The geographical divisions of Europe are fluid concepts, so the infobox lacks a sharply defined base for hard facts. The various concepts of "Southern Europe" – each of which should be well sourced – are better captured in prose and a few representative maps. –Austronesier (talk) 11:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

It would be better to delete the map more than the infobox. Because the countries mentioned in the infobox nobody disputes them. Removing the problem is better than removing all the information.--81.67.153.44 (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

the countries mentioned in the infobox nobody disputes them. False! --T*U (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@T*U. Is that so ?? Which countries are you having a problem with ? A country of the infobox of course.--81.67.153.44 (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Everyone can see for themselves from the different maps and lists that "Southern Europe" is not a well-defined concept, so that the claims the countries mentioned in the infobox nobody disputes them in this section and maps of these world organizations ... all define southern Europe in the same way (CIA World Factbook, UN geoscheme, EuroVoc) in the above section are demonstrably false, but since that is contested, I will give just a few examples:

• Corsica (but not southern France) is included in the list, but not in any of the three maps.
• Cyprus is in the list and in EuroVoc, but not in the UN geoscheme.
• Slovenia is in the list and in the UN geoscheme, but in the CIA Factbook it is classified in "Central Europe" together with i.e. Germany, and in EuroVoc it is listed in "Central and Eastern Europe" together with i.e. Russia (but not Germany).

As long as no-one can offer an uncontested reliable source for which countries to include, the list in the infobox is original research, as are the numbers for area and population and the list of langauges, not to mention the unsourced (green and blue) maps. I will remove the infobox and the two maps and reinstate the illustration that had been in the lead for a long time. Infobox and/or map should not be reinserted without prior consensus in the talk page. --T*U (talk) 07:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

A wise decision, full support from me. There is a map of Europe, and everyone knows that south is at the bottom of a conventional map. The remaining details can be in the prose. There never will be the definition of Southern Europe. Different criteria will lead to different divisions into subregions, culinary Southern Europe is not meteorological Southern Europe. As for all those organizations: bureaucrats will continue to arbitrarily split & merge subregions (which correspond to internal administrative departments in those organizations) driven by funding and the result of the lastest McKinsey spree. –Austronesier (talk) 10:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Southern Europe - Broad definition.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Next step

Further to the arguments above about the infobox, we should take a look at other parts of the article. The section "Population" with the subsection "Largest urban areas" are ridden with exactly the same problem as the infobox: The selection of countries is dependent on a clear definition and/or inclusion criteria, which we do not have. Unless we can agree on such criteria, the list is WP:OR. Regarding the cities/urban areas, the problem is even larger, since we also would need to agree on what kind of definition we should follow for the cities: city proper?, municipality?, built-up area?, metropolitan area?. We would need to take the numbers from sources that followed the same criteria for counting the population, if we had agreed on the geographical criteria in the first place.

I am removing the section and subsection. If anyone wants to recreate such section, feel free to present an outline of the section with inclusion criteria here in the talk page before reentering. --T*U (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

This is why you should not gradually delete information and end up creating disinformation. These deletions do not have to be and concern southern Europe. You can however modify them.--Julio188red (talk) 08:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I would say simply create the section with largest urban areas (ok, excluding Romania and Moldova as they show up only on one map if I am correct). Add ″UN geoscheme class. used for statistical convenience″ or something like that. Different definitions of the region are nicely given in either way, so people can choose which city to include in what they see as Southern Europe. Like choosing bread or bottle of wine. True, no clear definitions are given but let us not make it too difficult for ourselves because of that. If UN can create a map for ″statistical convenience″, then we can use it for similarly noble reason! — Boleynn (talk) 01:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Status of Romania

According to Encyclopedia Britannica, Romania is listed under the Balkans article as a Balkan state. Would it be incorrect to place Romania within the parentheses following the words “Balkan Peninsula”? Moreover, in the introductory paragraph of this Southern Europe page, Romania isn’t listed at all, yet it is listed in the subdivisions section. Epitome of Creativity (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

What is Encyclopedia Britannica and why should it be relevant? Less than 5% of Romania is Balkan, just the area under the Danube River known as Dobruja. This is not a reason to put Romania in southern Europe, because it's obviously Eastern Europe. Even the Balkans map don't include Romania as just a very small part under the Danube River is geographically Balkan, and even the Romanian part of Dobruja, which is SE Romania, is at the same latitude as Switzerland or Austria and I doubt anyone calls these countries southern Europe. Romania is Eastern Europe. --84.125.77.224 (talk) 09:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)