Talk:Europe

Previous Discussions:

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

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

Etymology

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

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

EU = the political Europe?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New background map for labelled map

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Largest cities

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

Russia ??

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

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

See also:

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

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

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

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

I

Oh dear. But they are not! There are no European and Asian continental plates - if there are, please correct the wiki article on plate tectonics and provide sources!! In particular, provide a new map of the continental plates as the old one shows plainly that Europe and Asia are on the same plate. You'll need to find one in an unusual place, as all the ones I find from .edu sources show the same thing. I'm sorry I'm being rather, well, sarcastic, but this is precisely this article is not a good one - it's not your fault for not knowing this, the article itself should have referenced plate tectonics, mentioned the unusual fact that Europe and Asia, unlike the other continents, are not in fact based on underlying continental plate tectonics (and so, "Europe" is a cultural convention, as the article almost points out in its first sentence and not a geologic entity). The Urals are not the result of continental collision. Neither are the Caucasus (at least, they are not the sites of direct continental forces - some of the upthrust in both regions is the result of distant continental landmasses colliding). It is a very interesting and hot topic in both anthropology and geology, and so it should be noted here. I am rather amazed, when I attend conferences on European history, that virtually no historian seems to follow the geologic story (or what they call "prehistory" and so, it is not uncommon at all for people to believe there is a plate under Europe colliding with one in Asia. In fact, as one can see (sort of) on Wiki's own plate tectonics map, the boundary in that region runs East/West, a fact that has influenced the transmission of culture, the movement of plants and animals - and the movements of people far more than the cultural concept of Europe, especially in times before the cultural concept of Europe actually arose. It is a very recent concept, compared to the length of time humans and human-like people have been in Europe.--Levalley (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

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

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

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

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

Abkhazia and South Ossetia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They all have recognition from at least one other internationally recognised as per Montevideo Convention. This is certainly not the case. The Convention specifies that The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Kransky (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You are of course correct, I attempted to over-simplify it. Basically, the extension of recognition to Taiwan, Kosovo, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, etc by relevant countries is the assertion of their opinion that Article 1 (a)-(d) are met, and is also exercised by god-knows how many other conventions and treaties in addition. That being said, it's not as simple as stating Kosovo is ok, and A & SO isn't, because that is anything but NPOV. The solution has already been in place, as you have acknowledged also, for some time, and it has worked in practice, and I don't think we should be allowing POV-pushing editors to poison WP:NPOV because of their own POV and biases. --Russavia ^Dialogue 22:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Additionally, why is Aland (part of Finland), Svalbard (part of Norway) and Faroe Islands (a province of Denmark) listed? These are NOT countries in any sense of the word. To list these under "Political geography" but leave out Abkhazia and South Ossetia, it is perfectly clear the seriousness of the POV-pushing here. --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ultimately, Oppose as per Digwuren's reasons above and my own reservations. ja fiswa imċappas bil-hara! (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I have just had to reinsert comments which you removed. I'll assume it was an accident, but it if wasn't you should know this is highly frowned upon. --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I haven't edited the article again. And let me remind you, that nationalistically led editing is bound to slip into the meanest kinds of POV. ja fiswa imċappas bil-hara! (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You actually removed comments with this edit. Just be careful is all. In regards to "nationalist" editting, it doesn't come into play with myself. But it may with WP:DIGWUREN, who was banned for a year and only just recently returned, for POV-pushing and treating WP as a battleground. Which is exactly what he is doing here. He has no interest in reaching NPOV, it's all about the battle with him. In regards to your "own reservations" this is your own POV; and none of us are published (are we), so our POV doesn't matter. I would reconsider it, particularly given my comments below in the "Freedom house" section. Abkhazia and South Ossetia are part of the political geographic landscape of Europe, and anyone who denies this is only fooling themselves; it's the same with Kosovo, anyone who would deny that is also fooling themselves. The key is how to present both sides of the argument, without censoring information based upon our own POV, and apply that uniformly across the board. --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought you meant an edit made after I posted here? And yes, my own reservations contribute to my participation in achieving consensus. NPOV is the priority; but you're fooling yourself if you don't believe you have demonstrated national bias in championing two puppet states. ja fiswa imċappas bil-hara! (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh-uh. I'm not championing anything here. Otherwise, I would simply remove Kosovo, which is not recognised by a absolute majority of countries. --Russavia ^Dialogue 20:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I've restored Abkhazia and SO but I think that the best way to solve this problem is to create an additional list after the main one where all the mostly nonrecognised countries would go (not only Abkhazia, Kosovo and South Ossetia, but also Transnistria and North Cyprus). This is how it has been done in the List of countries and there it turned out to be a rather stable solution. Alæxis_¿question? 20:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this is the way to go. There is no way that A and S.O. can be portrayed without some sort of disclaimer. ja fiswa imċappas bil-hara! (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Which is basically what I have suggested, although not as a separate list, which could be a way to resolve it. We should also probably remove Aland, Svalbard and Faroe Islands, as they are not recognised, or even partially recognised, countries. Otherwise we need to list Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England, in addition to the United Kingdom, as well as include Federal subjects of Russia; particularly the Republics; in addition to various regions within various European countries which also have broad autonomy. And it is also a way so that ALL -- Abkhazia, South Ossetia AND Kosovo -- can be listed, but WITH a disclaimer, either way. --Russavia ^Dialogue 20:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Pietru, Nicaragua and Transnistria recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and it looks like Belarus may recognize both of them soon. Bottom line is that they are both partially recognized and so is Kosovo. Either we list the three or list none of them at all. --Tocino 05:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

First, what may happen soon is poor basis for editorial decision. Second, the cases are rather different, lumping them together on a personal whim would be rather counterproductive. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 08:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Pretending that one is more independent than the others would harm the article's credibility. --Tocino 15:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Then, we've got the classic case of Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. It has been recognised by a UN member state; namely, Georgia. Under the "at least one" criterion, we'd have to consider it a country. Rather obviously, this would be an absurd position. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 08:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

First, Ichkeria was recognised by Georgia only during the rule of Gamsakhurdia (in the early nineties). Second, and more important, *now* Chechen insurgents don't control any stable territory and do not maintain a state anywhere. Now it's rather a government in exile. If it were not 2009 but 1998 now I'd have nothing against listing Chechnya with other unrecognised countries since then it was indeed de facto independent. Alæxis_¿question? 10:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of argument, can you find a reliable source of Georgia having withdrawn this recognition? Continued recognition of republics whose territory has been fully occupied by Russia is not entirely unprecedented. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 18:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's what I added to the article:

There is also a number of countries that are de facto independent but enjoy limited recognition and are not UN members.

Name of territory, with flag	Area (km²)	Population (1 July 2002 est.)	Population density (per km²)	Capital
Abkhazia	8,432	216,000	29	Sukhumi
Kosovo	10,887	2,126,708	220	Pristina
Nagorno-Karabakh	11,458	138,800	12	Stepanakert
North Cyprus	3,355	265,100	78	Nicosia
South Ossetia	3,900	70,000	18	Tskhinvali
Transnistria	4,163	537,000	133	Tiraspol

Actually I think that various dependencies like Gibraltar and Jan Mayen should also be in separate list. Alæxis_¿question? 19:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Good work. The separate list is a great compromise solution. Offliner (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Good work. I moved all colonies and territories into this list as well. DR2006kl (talk) 09:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

All ok, here. It's succinct, and its not pushing any POV. --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It is somewhat strange to group Jan Mayen and Svalbard together, as they fall into two different administrations (and Jan Mayen doesn't have any autonomy or special administrative status at all). Also this table is begging for inclusion of several other regions (ie. Northern Ireland, Madeira, Catalonia, South Tirol, Dagestan) some of which enjoy more autonomy than some of the regions that actually are included. One wonders what the selection criteria are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.120.122.106 (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a fascinating discussion. I'm curious what the responses to the above post will be. Levalley (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)--LeValley

Freedom house statement

What does the following statement have to do with political geography? In 2008, the Freedom House classified the following countries of Europe as not free: Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, and Russia.[113]

The chapter is about political geography, and lists various political entities in Europe, their population and so on. The chapter is not about "assessments of political situations in different regions." You can create another chapter for that if you want. But that chapter should then include other assessments as well, such as if their governments are left-wing or right-wing. Offliner (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

How is it not relevant to know which countries fail as free nations? I don't see why a new section should be created. ja fiswa imċappas bil-hara! (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Because it has nothing to do with political geography. Does anyone know the meaning of the phrase? --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Europe is a region of complex geography, rich past, and a variety of political systems. One of the outcomes of these bases is that Europe has a number of different political systems -- some of them follow the so-called Western values, others are, as Freedom House puts it, not free. It merits pointing out as an aspect of Europe's political geography.

Of course, it might be done in a better narrative, but this statement, albeit single, is a good start. It's self-contained, it's properly attributed and sourced -- excellent seed for editors to grow into a full section in near future. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 16:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with political geography. What does have something to do with political geography is that Abkhazia and South Ossetia are inherrent parts of the political geographic landscape of Europe, which is what you are POV-pushing to not include in that section, but then you want to include something that has nothing to do with political geography in the slightest. I really don't know what to say to that, except it is totally clueless. --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

?? Read the article political geography, which defines it as "the study of both the spatially uneven outcomes of political processes", being considered unfree is one outcome of political processes. Martintg (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

In terms of the geographical makeup of Europe, no, it is of absolutely no relevance at all. --Russavia ^Dialogue 20:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Your argument makes no sense, there are geographical regions in Europe where the political outcome is unfree. Martintg (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well someone is going to have to explain exactly how Freedom House regarding it's opinion that the UK as free and Kosovo as not free has anything to do with the geographic makeup of Europe. This is a question that requires answering, and it needs to be answered with reliable sources, seeing as it is yourself who is pushing for its insertion. --Russavia ^Dialogue 20:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It is to be expected that you'd be unfamiliar with this. Obviously, Russavia is using the Soviet definition of 'political geography' here. Since actual discussion of nuances of politics was pretty much verboten by the Party, 'political geography' was severely abridged to mainly deal with what entity governs what territories, and what kind of trade they engage in.

Of course, Wikipedia is not a Soviet-era textbook. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 20:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Obfuscating the question with an irrelevant rant on what you think I do or don't use is not answering the question. The WP:BURDEN is on editors who wish to include material to explain their edit, and the question needs to be answered. The question again: exactly how does Freedom House regarding it's opinion that the UK as free and Kosovo as not free have anything to do with the geographic makeup of Europe? And it needs to be a sourced answer, rather an editorial POV. --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Geology

First of all, the geography and geology sections are somewhat mixed up. Dr. Ram's statement is based on modern plate tectonics (geology). Geology is usually said to underlie geography - so perhaps it should come first and the plate tectonics moved there, while the mountain ranges as markers and the conventions involving rivers stay in geography, as is conventional. While I do not want to reopen the discussion about Europe not being a "real" continent based on plate tectonics, I do think under the geology section (which is so far down in the article that the etymological and common sense arguments have already been presented) should at least mention that it is not a continent according to plate tectonics, since the Wikipedia article on plate tectonics (which should be referenced here) plainly shows that it is not. While some people may think this is irrelevant to the article, it is most certainly not irrelevant, especially if one is interested in one of these topics: Europe pre-history and early migrations (the continental dividing barrier, which runs east to west heavily influenced migration into Europe, once above that line, folks tended to stay there for obvious reasons, and the part of Europe below that line was inhabited long after the landmass that runs above that tectonic line). Geology and geography have played an enormous role in European history (which I define as the entire past of Europe not just thhttp://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.pnge part after written language comes in, in the same way that "Europe" gets defined here as the way people have been used to using the term. In particular, the history of Russia and its peoples has been heavily influenced by the non-existence of any particular geologic/geographic line that defines it (this is common knowledge, but again, the article need only reflect that the underlying plates that create the uplifts (Pyrenees, Alps, Taurus, Zagroz, Karkoram, Himalayas) is a feature of the Eurasian landmass, such that in many disciplines (archaeology and what is called prehistory), one speaks these days of Eurasia (northern and southern) and not Europe and Asia (those are cultural/historic, not geologic/scientific) terms. The addition of one or two sentences and a link to plate tectonics is all that is needed. --Levalley (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

PreHistory Section

Is very good and up to date, considering how quickly some of it has been changing. However, there's way more. This was a topic that got "researched out" in the 19th and early 20th century by archaeologists and others, but some recent discoveries (like the String Revolution) and the division of Europe into relevant pre-literate cultural periods is now standard in anthropology (and has been since the 1950's, I reckon) and so some mention of the various periods and their accomplishments (like the Gravettian) needs to be here. It is a complex subject and presumably has its own page (I hope), but as it is an area where I have collected many citations and am still doing bibliographic work, I'll try to improve this section as I compile the citations. --Levalley (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

This article is only a summary of what should appear elsewhere on wikipedia in more detail. There is no article on the "string revolution", so it is probably a better idea to write that article first, if there are reliable sources and it is undisputed (the work of the paleontologist Elizabeth Wayland Barber, who introduced the term in her 1995 book, is cited in a number of wikipedia articles on the history of textiles, etc). As for the Gravettian period, this is mentioned in prehistoric France, but it's not clear that this degree of detail is required in this summary section when it does not appear in prehistoric Europe. Mathsci (talk) 03:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The Gravettian applies to a period in time when almost no one was living in Europe - except in France and parts of Ukraine and Russia. It is part of a set of sometimes overlapping cultural periods for prehistory Europe. There should probably be a separate article for Prehistoric Europe and I'm shocked (shocked!) that there's no article on the String Revolution! Oh my gosh! I guess I have my work cut out for me. Once written, I'll try to link it back here - it's going to take me awhile, but it needs to be done, it's so interesting.Levalley (talk) 02:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)--LeValley

The etymology of "Europe" and its' meaning

I long suspected the word "Europe" stem from the meanings of "Earth" in the ancient European languages, the European landmass was then the known world for them and gave names for the world "Eros", "Eyrose" and "Eurthes" was later called "Earth" for the whole planet instead of the continent of Europe. +71.102.2.206 (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've long held the view that -ur and -or are both ancient roots (proto-Boreal at least, probably proto-W-or-ld that means something like "land" or "place we live"). S'ur was the land of the Sumerians (an English corruption, IIRC, they called themselves people of Ur, and named their cities Ur and Uruk (second Ur), etc. Europe, Ural, Ur, original, all have the same root (my view).--Levalley (talk) 02:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

Something wrong with the map

The map is missing borderlines between the European countries. It would looks ten times better if it had borderlines. 83.108.232.65 (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)