Jump to content

Talk:Europe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ish warsaw (talk | contribs) at 22:46, 27 September 2008 (→Kosovo?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeEurope was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 26, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
March 5, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Previous Discussions:


Istanbul - europe's largest city?

to follow the logic of various arguements about the trans-continental status of various countries, how do we measure Istanbul? Is the european part bigger than moscow or london?Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, that was added there by indef blocked User:Izmir lee (as his sockpuppet Aegean Boy). He was blocked for consistent edit-warring for relentlessly pushing the POV that "Turkey is European and ONLY European". As for Istanbul, I am split on the issue, however, I do get the impression that Moscow is larger and is therefore Europe's largest city, with Istanbul possibly 2nd, 3rd, or 4th (depending on the size of Paris and London and whether we include only the strictly European part or the whole thing. --Tsourkpk (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it starts to get into the issue of what is a city's size. How far out can suburbs extend and still be part of the same city? In the US, many cities have suburbs that are themselves officially cities, although in some other countries suburbs of that size and status would be small towns. So before, say, London and Moscow can be compared, the "definition" of city must first be made.
In London, with which I am the most familiar, it could be said to be the area with London as the postal designation, or the area inside the M25 periphery motorway. Or it could be said to be the areas that are part of the political London.
Two examples are:
1) Enfield "in" North London. It is inside the M25 periphery motorway, and is politically a London district (borough), part of the old GLC, now GLA, but its postal address is Enfield, Middlesex - with no mention of London at all.
and 2) Watford - a geographically similar distance to London, similarly inside the M25, but not politically or postally part of London. Watford actually has better transport links (road, metro, train) to central London than Enfield does!
Similarly, of London's five airports (Heathrow, Gatwick, City, Stanstead, and Luton, only 1 is in the centre of London (City), and only one more is inside the peripheral motorway (Heathrow).
I am sure a similar problem of definition applies to many cities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 04:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to pin down a city's size is another intractable problem. It's essentially trying to draw a discrete boundary through a continuum. There are several things we can try. One is city limits, metro area, or larger urban zone. There are several articles that try to deal with this:
1) Larger Urban Zone
2) Largest cities of the European Union by population within city limits
3) Largest European cities and metropolitan areas
4) Largest urban areas of the European Union
My own personal feeling is to go with urban agglomeration or LUZ. From most of what I've seen in wikipedia and elsewhere, Moscow seems consistently to be ranked #1. --Tsourkpk (talk) 05:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Problem with using continous urban development is that London has a politically created artificial break around it "the Green Belt", which not all other cities share. the economic activity of london is therefore much more dependent on citizens living just outside that artificial barrier than in a similar city without that barrier.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 06:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, but I don't know what to tell you. Different cities use different definitions. Like I said, this is a largely intractable problem. Should we use metro area instead? --Tsourkpk (talk) 06:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even using some of the suggested link above give a variation of c. 4 million people in the population of london. Not exactly a very precise comparison!Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 06:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take the average of a bunch of different estimates then? --Tsourkpk (talk) 06:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moscow and London are both very big and very european. Hard to measure london's population - the UK doesn't have an official ID/citizenship register, and the voter's list doesn't include foreigners (or people under 16/17) and the last census was 7 years ago, and that doesn't include illegal immigrants, and people who are on the margins of sociey (through choice or circumstance). A good example is Slough where the council said they had many times more Polish migrants in their town than the official total (the council said their figure was based on people accessing services such as education etc.)

the UK does not, oddly perhaps, keep a list of who has left the country, so even if evryone was documented entering (and they are not) it would be difficult to know how many returned overseas, and how many stayed on in an unofficial capacity. As a major cosmopolitan city, and a good source of employment, a lot of migrants to the country live in and around London. So you see the problem. So it is hard to say how big london is, let alone compare it with moscow, which no doubt has some similar and some differeing problems when trying to define its size.
The Slough page has a link on it to a TV documentary describing the problems with UK popultaion estimates.
And every time a minister makes a statement in the Parliament here about population, immigration, etc., it seems that statement has to be updated to allow for something not counted, or the vagaries of the estimates. Not very well organised for a so-called "developed" country, is it!
Perhaps best to include several cities as the largest (one source above list Istanbul, if the asian bit counts) and put in copious footnotes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 06:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would try to look at as many lists as possible and take the average. That would minimize error. --Tsourkpk (talk) 06:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. Remember that Green belt round London. And the point about the population stats is they are all guesses based on partial data - even the official one from the UK. The register of births, which should contain everyone born in the UK, is not systematically cross referenced to the register of deaths. This has been a method of getting false passports for years. It has been tightened up, but it is neither completely, or systematically checked. The number of illegral immigrants in the UK has been estimated to be 500,000, but that figure could be out by a good few hundred thousand either way, and that is just the official estimates. No-one knows (officially) how many new-EU citizens (e.g. Poles, Czechs, etc) live and work in London - that's an official estimate as well - the UK counted many of them on the way in, but has no estimate for how many subsequently left the country. And there were certainly massive population flows post EU enlargement. Britain, after all, had one of the healthiest economies in the EU, so it is only natural that it would attract a large number of migrants. I suggest you watch that documentary to get a feel of the problem!
On the subject of city definition, there seems to be little or no agreement about what popultion density a city should have. One table shows Moscow larger than london, but at a lower population density. Perhaps city size should be adjusted for popultion density to reduce the differences in what counts as a suburb.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this a non-issue? I've never seen any table in which MOscow isn't the largest European city and Istanbul the second. JdeJ (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
well, one of the four linked suggested above as lists of city sizes lists Istanbul. The problem I have with London is that the figures seem to have wildly different bases for compilation - a variation of 4 million in a figure only 2 to 3 times that suggests VERY different methodologies, at best.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Ah, the Polish plumber problem. Don't Sweden and the UK also have slightly different laws, which make them more attractive as workplaces to new-EU citizens? I would love to find a Polish plumber here in France. That would solve the far more taxing French plumber problem. :-)Mathsci (talk) 07:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had by bathroom fixed by a Lithuanian and a Russian ;) Did a good job too!Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Largest city means the most populous city. It is not about its size or area. "Istanbul is Europe's most populous city (the world's 3rd largest city proper and 21st largest urban area) and Turkey's cultural and financial center..." This is from Wikipedia's Istanbul article. According to Largest European cities and metropolitan areas, Istanbul ranks 1st in " Population of municipality " but Moscow ranks 1st in " Population of metropolitan area ". If we put them in order by their Population of municipality, Istanbul must be the most populous city but by their Population of metropolitan area, Moscow must be the largest city, Istanbul is the 2nd, ... --85.100.158.147 (talk) 08:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The question about what defines a city is part of the problem. Some editors clearly believe one thing, and some another. Has modern transport redefined the meaning of city? 200 years ago, a city was unlikely to be more than, say, 10 or 15 miles across (my opinion). Do suburbs count as a city? Is Istanbul really two cities, next to each other? Or what? Budapest is two cities, so what about Istanbul?Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 10:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back to how the measurement is made. This organisation [1]has tried to remove the bias from the politically created gap (greenbelt) at the edge of London. they have a figure of 13,945,000 for London in 2001! That is already in front of Istanbul (add on population growth in the last 7 years, and suddenly you have a figure similar or greater than Moscow!). On another track, the figures quoted on Wikipedia for Metro area size are from "World Gazeteer". Anyone know what this is? Google didn't come up with much. The World Gazeteer website didn't seem to say anything about ownership (certainly not that I found - maybe i'm just daft!). So who produces it? A government? a University? an organisation/NGO? an Individual with a burning desire and a bit of time? What is the quality of their data? Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 10:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found (with deeper digging) something more about the World Gazeteer site. Well, this link [2] suggests that it is doesn't really come up to scratch a source quality - it does not appear to be peer-reviewed, or by a known reputable organisation. Its data appears to be second and third hard, including user feedback.

That's what I think.
If my doubts are confirmed, then the Metro area listing for size is, at best, unreliable. So it would appear to contribute nothing to the biggest city (Moscow/Istanbul/London/Other) debate
What does everyone else think
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 10:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a possible way forward, perhaps I can repeat my previous comment:
Perhaps best to include several cities as the largest (one source above list Istanbul, if the asian bit counts) and put in copious footnotes! Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Hey , Hey. Here is a list[2] that says London is bigger than Moscow or Istanbul. Told you so.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 23:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "hey, hey, hey" is that site some sort of official document that mandates us to model the entire list over it? Wikipedia should not be merely a copy of something.--Satt 2 (talk) 23:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you should read the stuff above. The view of most sources is that it is Moscow, Istanbul, London, with one site having Istanbul, Moscow, London, and one site having London, Moscow, Istanbul. But there is no common definition of what a city is. One site lists "core city" and suburbs in different columns - then London only get 2 million. So there you are, depending on definition London is c.2 million to c.14 million in size. So there is no "right" figure (quite apart from the population migration point that I raised earlier.
PLUS the Wikipedia list is based on a questionable source (see notes above). Which is why, oddly enough, I have already suggested a list with footnotes to accomodate the different sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 09:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "Encarta" :
    • {{cite web|last=Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia 2007|title="Europe"|url=http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570768/Europe.html|accessdate=2007-12-27}}
    • {{cite web|last=Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2007|title="Europe"|url=http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570768/Europe.html|accessdate=2007-12-27}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakhstan is listed in Europe and Asia?

I was just browsing around and noticed that Kazakhstan is listed in Europe and Asia pages. I understand that Kazakhstan is on both Continents, but why was it chosen to be this way and by who, and when? Can someone elaborate on this. --Japreja (talk) 03:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Why was it chosen to be this way"? Well, I guess because the country is on both continents, as you have already figured. Who implemented this when? I can't answer you , but you can look that up yourself using the article history. Good luck! Tomeasy T C 09:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High res map for prints

The current map of Europe is rather annoying. The problem with it is that you can not print it because the links aren't saved. It would be cool if there was a High-Res map of Europe that allowed you to print stuff from it. Not sure how to create a new topic though. It would be cool if somebody could make another high res map that you could print. 161.97.199.36 (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you like the header I invented, because I am not 100% sure I understand what you want. Tomeasy T C 07:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Kosovo?

Kosovo is NOT a state. it is an autonomous region of Serbia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.147.174 (talk) 14:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of Europe disagrees with you Ijanderson (talk) 13:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the majority of the world agrees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.168.205 (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also the UN and the internacional laws agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.239.217.32 (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then put Abkhazia and S.O., in the meantime, I'm putting a POV tag --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure you put the tag on the right section? You put it on the Definition section, while apparently you are disputing the neutrality of the Political geography here. Tomeasy T C 17:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's agree that this is a delicate question and it need thorough attention to solve it. Actually, it is part of the most ardently discussed topics on wikipedia: how do we appreciate independence of countries when disputed. Most apparent are locator maps and topical lists as the one here. Those of you who are interested to design a general guideline for these cases without having recent instances in mind (or on agenda) should feel invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Locator maps and de facto independence. There and here we should try to come up with an objective rule that then defines naturally which countries fall into the list and which ones do not. Let's leave behind, for the time being, the concrete countries and discuss on the basis of objective criteria.

I will give it a first shot; here's my proposition:
Include all countries on the list that are (i) de facto sovereign and (ii) recognized by at least one universally recognized state. Tomeasy T C 17:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-proposal: Include all countries on the list that are (I) de facto sovereign and (II) recognized by at least more than one universally recognized state.--MaGioZal (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine to me. In the case at hand it would not make a difference anyway. Can you explain why a minimum of two makes sense to you, while one is not enough? To me, this appears to be the weak point in your proposal. People will start asking why two? It seems arbitrary. Tomeasy T C 19:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tom's proposal, it sounds fair. De facto situation is important. I would opt to show even North Cyprus. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did not think of N. Cyprus at all, but you are right it just follows from my proposition. Let's leave the exapmles out for the time being and see how we can find a truly NPOV ruling.
The reason I formulated (ii) along 1 recognized country is that this constitutes sufficiently the situation where different points of view exist. In this situation, I propose that our list should reflect both points of view, i.e., not decide to overrule one of the two. In contrast to this, Magiozal's proposal seems arbitrary to me: why 2, why not 3 or 4...? With respect to my proposal, the number 1 is not arbitrary. I hope this has been made clear.
Still, very different proposals might be possible... Tomeasy T C 12:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question is do you recognize only UN-recognized states, or any "state" that has de facto control over its own territory, with its own legislature etc. ? Kosovo relaly is not more a state than Abkhazia or South Ossetia or North Cyprus or Nagorno-Karabakh. Then we can get into issues like Transnistria, or Mount Athos. It would be best if only states that are internationally-recognized UN members be included. Otherwise this discussion will still be going on ages from now, and may very well turn nasty. 41.245.165.40 (talk) 08:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UN membership is also just one point of view. A look at the history of this organization reveals that very often well-established states were not members, like e.g. Switzerland, and still the Vatican is not a member. Should the latter be removed from our list? It enjoys universal recognition, so I would say include. I hope you agree. With respect to your examples my proposal is quite clear: Mt. Athos, Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabagh are not recognized by any universally recognized state - hence should be excluded. I understand you would like to do so as well. You claim Kosovo is no different than Abkhazia. My proposal would include both. So, I wonder what's your problem with my proposal and where are the advantages of relating everything to a single organization and its POV, the UN? Tomeasy T C 09:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that only UN members should be included in order to avoid any unnecessary POV disputes. --ish_warsaw (talk) 22:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Europe&oldid=241415919"