Jump to content

Talk:List of transcontinental countries

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Andem (talk | contribs) at 10:16, 23 January 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

(The following copied from bicontinental country)

adding rant to Talk page, so that the readers can see the background: Every two continents that share a common land mass have a geographicaly defined border between them, that passes inside one or more countries. The inclusion of such 'border'-country into the continent, where the country has less territory (much less, even neglectably in most cases) sparks controversion with people that consider the country to be part of the "continent with bigger share of the country territory". Often some cultural and historical reasons are bringed up that should 'prove' that the country belongs ONLY to that continent. In this article is covered the geographical meaning of continents. The cultural and historical reasons are used only as exception (in the cases where the geographical place is not the same as the popular opinion) and only for INCLUSION to a second continent. No state is EXCLUDED from its geographical continent becouse of such reasons (Despite that they are often much more important in practice).

what to improve?

are there more sections to be re-written?

Typos and/or misspellings galore, if nothing else. No idea who's responsible for them, but they should get fixed. Alfvaen 05:23, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

I fixed the misspellings and obvious grammar problems that I found. Article does need serious attention though. Val42 03:12, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

not original research

this article is secondary research with sources: for statistical data - WorldFactBook, World Gazetteer, Wikipedia articles, for explanations and border data - Wikipedia articles

What we are doing here might indeed be secondary science/research, but nobody of us has found yet a passage in a book written by a well established authority about our topic. Therefore, it is probably up to us to define the borders between the continents :) -- Citylover 18:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

some things to add

  • Which of these countries get membership of multiple organisations? E.g. OSCE (E==Europe) and Asian forums.
See this.
  • a references section with footnotes showing where each bit of info came from
as already many times stated (including in the article) - the data is from Wikipedia, World Gazetteer, WorldFactBook; physical position of rivers/mountains/etc. is from MS Encarta WorldAtlasAlinor 12:33, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The article concentrates too much on the accuracy of calculation of the populations. This is not the main topic which should be covered. Mozzerati 08:32, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

Agreed. Shall we rewrite it so that it concentrates on the important information? What about if we concentrate on which ones are bicontinental and percentage of each country. Val42 03:12, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

real issues to discuss

Asia/Oceania:

  • Wallace Line (is it only zoological, or also tectonic border) animals distiction or Melanesia human distinction is the border?
The Eurasian Plate shares a common boundary with the Australian Plate in Indonesia. According to the article Wallace line, this tectonic boundary coincides with the Wallace line, but on the map of the tectonic plates, the boundary between the Eurasian Plate and the Australian Plate is much further to the West (even more to the West than the Melanesian line, also mentioned in this article). Why is that? Is the tectonic division of Indonesia is not consistent with its geographic/biological/linguistic division or is it consistent? (Then, the statement "The geological and zoological border follows the Wallace line" of this article here should also be reconsidered). -- Citylover 09:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asia/Europe:

  • on the east - recently I have seen some maps that show the Emba river (instead of Ural river as currently used in this page) as part of the continental border.
  • on the south - the maps that I have checked recently, (that don't show only state borders) were using mostly the Caucaus watershed (as currently used in this page). But there was one map that was using even SOUTHERN line (crossing Georgia in half and nearing, but not crossing into Armenia) - unknown what river/other geographical feature it follows - the map was about rainfall data or something similar. The possible explanations are: (1) the authors have eighter used an arbitrary line - becouse of lack of knowledge (again pointing to the usefullness of this page - this topic is not trivia), or (2) this line represents better the "main Caucaus watershed" than the current maps on this page, or (3) this line represents some other geographical feature, considered by the authors of the map as the continent border. Anyway that was just 1 (of nearly 10) map, but I wanted to note it.
  • in the Mediterranean - there are some greek islands very close to the Turkey's asian coast. Does someone think that these islands are GEOGRAPHICALY asian? (if yes, Greece will not became "bicontinental", becouse the islands are not "contigous" parts of its territory... until someone states that Greece is "island country", becouse of its many islands... maybe we should check the percentage greek area/pop on islands and decide if it is "islandish enough", etc.)

North/South America:

  • Whitch carribean islands should be considered North and witch south. Currently on the page are mentioned Grenada and Tobago as possible South.

Alinor 18:46, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The term bicontinental is not scientific at all. Geologists define only six continents: Eurasia, Africa, North America, South America, Australia, and Antarctica. Geographers define them equally or less by introducing Africa-Eurasia and/or the Americas. Europe is just a peninsula; Asia and Oceania aren't continents. In this sense, the real bicontinental countries are only Egypt and Panama, and arguably Spain, which list is nothing interesting. - TAKASUGI Shinji 10:13, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)

from Vfd

On 6 Mar 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bicontinental country for a record of the discussion. —Korath (Talk) 16:22, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Spain and Portugal

Are Spain and Portugal bicontinental? There are two small Spanish exclaves on the African coast, and Azores are considered African geographically. — Instantnood 23:05, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

If so, then so are France, UK, US, ... Nightstallion 06:51, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Overseas territories are not part of the United Kingdom, and therefore the UK is not. The United States could be arguable, as Hawaii is considered part of Oceania. France is definitely spanning across several continents. The DOMs/TOMs are integral parts of the country. — Instantnood 14:16, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Spain, Portugal, UK, France, etc. are not included, becouse their territories on "another continents" are not "contiguous" to their "main territory". Such non-contiguous examples are many, like Yemen's islands near the african coast, etc., but they are out-of-scope here. Alinor 10:22, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Then the same applies to the Trinidad and Tobago, Netherlands Antilles and Indonesia. — Instantnood 11:30, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Trinidad and Tobago and Indonesia consist entierly of islands - islands are their "main territory" and their respective islands that are geographicaly considered on different continents are close together, so that the "contiguous" rule is also present. (as mentioned in the article - the case of Tobago is disputable - maybe it is also South American like Trinidad, so the whole country will lie in South America). Netherlands Antilles is also a island entity - islands are "main territory"; the two groups of islands that make the Netherlands Antilles are remote one-to-another, so they are not exactly "contigous", but I think that we can not compare Spain/Ceuta&Melia to the two groups of tiny Netherland Antilles' islands.Alinor 17:56, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

picture change

I don't think that the new dark image is better for the eyes... The former was more contrast and also the colors are the same as these on the other images (including such on another pages)...

Continent Definition

Although it may double up with the continent page, perhaps a little on the complications of defining what a continent is will help set the scene for the complications of whether countrys are or are not bicontinental. The division of a country between 2 continents is entirly dependant on what the continent boundry is defined as. Political, Social, historical, geographical and geological definitions. As such, by different definitions different countries could be seen as bicontinental. Perhaps there could be more than the one viewpoint it seems to be that this artical uses definite definitions of what these continents are, something which doesn't exist. It could be sugested that continental definitions, even geological definitions of a continent are arbitary human constructs. Perhaps there should be a greater deal of fluidity of what these continental boundries consist of and as such what constitutes a bicontinental country. Gazzapedia 15:41, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps the best way is on this page to use multiple definitions. We could provide the three (or more) definitions at the top of the page. Then for each of the bicontinental countries, we can note which definition(s) apply. Val42 17:28, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)


(Begin of Talk page)


Merging

I moved the info from bicontinental country to here because the name "bicontinental" does not exist anywhere in English literature; I made it up. —Cantus…☎ 05:17, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Disputed box

As I understand the DISPUTE-box is about the first paragraph that was "Transcontinental" before the merge with "Bicontinental Country"...

I think the DISPUTE previously applied to both pages.

about the europe "gray" border I have personaly asked a professional geographer about the newest-revision (if any) of the path of that border. See the detailed description in the second paragraph of the page.
what is still disputed? Maybe we should remove the disputed-box. 62.204.151.1 6 July 2005 21:20 (UTC)

nation or state?

I think that 'transcontinental nation' has too wide meaning. The second part of this page (before the merger - Bicontinental country) was made for the geographical sense. But maybe it is better so - to cover the other possible means of transcontinental. 62.204.151.1 6 July 2005 21:20 (UTC)

I agree that "state" is a much better and more easily defined word than "nation" when it comes to delimiting territories that may span two or more "continents". Perhaps a short line just to define what is meant by "state" (or other "seperate but non-sovereign geopolitical entity") would help? --Big Adamsky 15:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

Can somebody tell me where is information about colonies of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in Africa and South America were get from? I'm almost sure that it is mistake, but may be I'm wrong. MaxiMaxiMax 9 July 2005 16:19 (UTC)

I am confused too, maybe the people that added it to the list may know better, but check the map on the P-L commonwealth page - there are two boxes in one corner showing Tobago and Gambia as some sort of dependencies... Alinor 11:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tobago and Gambia were technically, though as tangentially as possible, dependencies of the Commonwealth during the seventeenth century. They were colonies of the Duchy of Courland, now a part of Latvia, which itself was a fiefdom of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Sonitus 01:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, it was very interesting and surprising for me. But may be it is better to say that just Duchy of Courland was a transcontinental nation? MaxiMaxiMax 01:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Panama

I have always seen the N-S America boundary at the Panama-Colombia border on maps, never at the Panama Canal.

Most of the maps do not show the N-S border at all (does the map has some special line that is described in the legend as "continental border"?). They just color some countries in gray/whatever (for example - if the map is "Political map of South America" - the north american are gray) and the others in multiple colors (south american). They just don't bother to deal with 'special cases' like Panama - it is anyway in many ways closer to Costa Rica, etc. than to Colombia, etc. - so they leave it in the group of central/north american states... This is the same as with Egypt - in is colored fully on many "Maps of Africa" - even if Sinai peninsula is clearly asian. In the same manner - many "Maps of Asia" don't inlclude Sinai.Alinor 15:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greece, part 1

  • ~20% of Greece territory is islands. These islands are NOT distant (both to one-another and to the continental territory) - so maybe these 20% are enough to state that "islands form a contigous part of Greece territory". If so, then we should include Greece in the table too - it will have ~4% territory in Asia (more than Turkey in Europe - ~3%).

Factual accuracy

(this label inserted)

  • I don't see a big dispute in this discussion page. If no one objects I will remove the "factual accuracy disputed" box.

Alinor 19:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will object. Much of this article deals with ambiguity of continental boundaries as though the arbitrary and unsourced lines were consensus. It is also silly to speak of islands as part of any continent, although it may be convenient for special purposes. Please consult Wiktionary. Septentrionalis 02:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Islands are "part of" a continent as much as they are peaks of the same continental shelf feature (or other geological feature) that forms the continent. Of course islands in the middle of the atlantic or the pacific oceans are formed by other means, so they do not "belong" to any continent.
OK, the box on top of the page says "factual accuracy is disputed". Please, say witch specific facts do you object, so that someone can fix the article if needed.Alinor 15:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I object to the use of continent in a sense contrary to the principal English sense of the word: a continuous body of land. (The points, such as are, can be saved by rephrasing.)
OK, maybe we should say subcontinent or find the most appropriate geographical term (penninsula, mega-peninsula or whatever).84.242.172.164 16:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I object further to any statement of the form: This is the boundary of Europe; all others are wrong. I have myself seen discussions of Europe which takes the boundary as the Don, the Caucasus, the Phasis, and the Russian frontier. Each of these is an intelligent choice, useful for certain purposes; none of them are handed down from on high. Similar remarks apply to the two Americas.
I think that we should stick to the geographical border. Other borders that are found in many places - such as "Europe Autoroute map" that ends at the eastern outskirts of Moscow, or political maps that end at the Russian border, etc. - such may be convenient for their purpose, but don't help much here. Such cases can be mentioned as additional intresting details, but they should not be on equal footing with the purely geographical borders of the subcontinent/continent/whatever. The geographical border can be only one - based on on geographical features, but not a border that is based not on "various sources, including regular people that I meet on the street, encyclopedias, magazines and others" (many of those sources use one-another or simlify true geographical sources and deform the border so that it goes along other more-popular lines such as the Russia border or Columbia border).84.242.172.164 16:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as the one and only geographical boundary of Europe to the SE or the only geographical boundary between the Americas. That's the problem here. Septentrionalis 20:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We should look in specialized geographical sources only. Not in general purpose: maps, encyclopedias, dictionaries, CIA WorldFactbook, etc. I have so far checked only three such SPECIALIZED sources (one geography expert that I personaly know; one map showing the Ural-Emba border explicitely with special marking, but sadly the Caucasus was not shown on this map; one book for the starting university course of physical geography). All three sources agree in the definition of the border: (short version) Ural EASTERN SLOPE-Mugodjar-Emba-deepest parts of the Caspian (NOT the shoreline)-Kura river-Kholhida lowland-deepest parts of the Black sea-etc. Also it is very important that the sources DEFEND their "claim" with arguments and explain WHY the border goes along that specific way. The map and the book were not going so far, but the expert I asked speaked about geosynclinals, continental shelf and other things that seem like sound arguments and not simple "draw a line in the steppes"-thing.62.204.151.1 16:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would be prepared to discuss an NPoV label for the second class; although I believe them to be false, if they have truth-value at all.Septentrionalis 18:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to do an edit, rephrasing the definition of the continents in a manner less open to objection. I hope it will be generally acceptable; if not, it will be available to anyone who wishes to resolve the accuracy tag. I do not deny that there are reasons to prefer one boundary over another; but that preference is a point of view. (Although any reasons that involve geosynclines are likely to be using somewhat dated geology.) Septentrionalis 14:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Main section done. I have left a {dubious} tag because I believe the Caucasus watershed to be in fact more common that the line D. In any case, the line should be sourced. Septentrionalis 16:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greenland

How should we color Greenland - as dark pink (meaning "culturaly european, geographicaly north american") or leave it as it is now - gray (meaning "non-european geographicaly")?Alinor 15:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greenland is politically European, geographically North American - and as for its cultural affiliation, hmm.. well, perhaps slightly more European than North American. It has a modern western culture which is probably more influenced by Nordic mores than anything else. --Big Adamsky 15:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iceland

A user at this page Template_Talk:Europe has suggested that Iceland is shared between Europe and North America - considering the tectonic plates (the two plates meet in the middle of Iceland) as the border. What do you think, should we include this case to the page?62.204.151.1 19:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of nonsense

I have removed the list from the end of the article. For the most part, it duplicates discussions above, many of which have been done with some care and delicacy. It is also sodden with error itself.

List follows, with critical comments: Spain (European) - integral parts Ceuta and Melilla, Canary Islands (African)

islands, are by definition, not part of any continent (hereafter islands)

Yemen (Asian) - integral parts Socotra (African) - in addition to the asian mainland of Yemen on the Arabian Peninsula, part of Yemen is also the African island of Socotra, to the east of the Horn of Africa \

islands

Greece (European) - integral parts like Rhodes, Lesbos, Samos, Chios and Kos belong geographically to Asia, but politically and historically to Europe

islands; this case is egregious, since the distinction between Rhodes or Samos, on the one hand, and Asia on the other, is ancient and historically important.

Indonesia (Asian/Oceanian) - integral parts on two different continents

islands

USA (North American) - integral part Hawaii (in Oceania) and dependencies like Guam (in Oceania)

islands, and Oceania is not a continent.

France (European) - integral parts like French Guiana (South American) and dependencies like New Caledonia (in Oceania)

islands

United Kingdom (European) - dependencies and integral parts on multiple continents and in Oceania

false since 1997

Netherlands (European) - integral parts in North and South America (Caribbean Sea)

islands

Denmark (European) - integral part Greenland (North American)

islands

Norway (European) - Bouvet Island near Antarctica Australia (Oceanian) - islands like Macquarie Island near Antarctica or Heard Island and McDonald Islands near Antarctica and Africa and island like Cocos (Keeling) Islands or Christmas Island near Asia 

? New Zealand (Oceanian) - islands like Campbell Island near Antarctica

Not only are these islands, they omit the real (if unpressed) claims to Antarctica itself. Septentrionalis 17:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries with non-contiguous territory on several continents

I will try to improve this section so it can be reinserted into the article. In my opinion, this section is not nonsense at all and should be reinserted into the article. There are a number of countries where it is unclear if (and why) they are/might be countries with non-contiguous territory on several continents: Greece, Chile, South Africa, Yemen/Eritrea, Russia/United States, Palau, Australia, New Zealand, Turkey and Russia and Egypt, Georgia (country) and Azerbaijan, Indonesia, the Caribbean (especially Venezuela and Colombia) and Panama. All these countries are discussed separately below (I copied the already present discussion about Greece from two different places from below down here). -- Citylover 13:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the list is not nonsense, but it is inconsistent. For example saying that Guam and New Caledonia are part of any particular sovereign country is entirely wrong. They are neither sovereign in their own right, nor are they integral parts of any state that is. So dependencies cannot count in this list. --Big Adamsky 15:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greece, part 2 (the discussion in "Greece, part 1" above is also included down here)

  • in the Mediterranean - there are some greek islands very close to the Turkey's asian coast. Does someone think that these islands are GEOGRAPHICALY asian? (if yes, Greece will not became "bicontinental", becouse the islands are not "contigous" parts of its territory... until someone states that Greece is "island country", becouse of its many islands... maybe we should check the percentage greek area/pop on islands and decide if it is "islandish enough", etc.)
  • ~20% of Greece territory is islands. These islands are NOT distant (both to one-another and to the continental territory) - so maybe these 20% are enough to state that "islands form a contigous part of Greece territory". If so, then we should include Greece in the table too - it will have ~4% territory in Asia (more than Turkey in Europe - ~3%).
In my opinion, Greece may indeed even be considered a country lying in both Asia and Europe (as discussed just above) like Turkey, but Greece is at least a country with non-contiguous territory on several continents. Among several (much) smaller islands, islands like Lesbos, Chios, Samos, Ikaria, Rhodes and Karpathos are located closer to the Asian continent than to the European continent. Geographically speaking, this means that these islands are part of Asia, but historically/culturally/linguistically/politically, they are part of Europe. In my opinion, Greece is (at least seen from a systematic viewpoint) exactly the same case as the United Kingdom with its British overseas territories, France with its Islands controlled by France in the Indian and Pacific oceans, Norway with its island Bouvet Island or the Netherlands with Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles, but - geographically speaking - with the only difference that its islands on other continents are much closer to the mainland in the case of Greece than in the cases of the United Kingdom, France, Norway and the Netherlands. So, one might debate whether Greece should be included in the section Countries in both Asia and Europe, but it should be quite clear that Greece is at least - at least in geographical terms - a country with non-contiguous territory no several continents.
Tectonic consideration: I do not know if the border area between Greece and Turkey is a boundary area between two tectonic plates. There are no Major current tectonic plates there, although probably minor plates may have a boundary there (maybe Hellenic Plate?).

-- Citylover 18:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chile

If the USA is a country with non-contiguous territory on several continents, the same should apply to Chile too because - in complete analogy to the US islands of Hawaii, Guam etc. (see also Political divisions of the United States#Insular_areas_of_the_United_States) - Chile has several islands "very" far away from its mainland, especially Easter Island and - to a lesser extent - Isla Sala y Gómez.
Tectonic consideration: I do not know if Isla Sala y Gómez or especially Easter Island are already part of the Pacific Plate or still part of the Antarctic Plate or Nazca Plate.
A good map for an overwiev can be found here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4b/World-map-2004-cia-factbook-large-2m.jpg.
-- Citylover 18:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

South Africa

Another open question concerns South Africa and its Prince Edward Islands. If the Prince Edward Islands are closer to Africa than to the Antarctica, South Africa would in my opinion not be a country with non-contiguous territory on several continents. If the shortest distance from Prince Edward Islands to the African continent is difficult to compare with the shortest distance to Antarctica, where does Prince Edward Island belong to (one could also consider, as mentioned above, tectonical borders)? If the distance from Prince Edward Island to Antarctica is smaller than to the African continent (and there would be no objections because of tectonical borders - but in my opinion tectonical borders are not very important), Prince Edward Island would belong to Antarctica and therefore, South Africa would be a country with non-contiguous territory on several continents.
Tectonic consideration: I do not know if the Prince Edward Islands are already part of the Antarctic Plate or still part of the African Plate.
A good map for an overwiev can be found here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4b/World-map-2004-cia-factbook-large-2m.jpg.
-- Citylover 18:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The geographical border between Yemen and Eritrea

Another open question concerns the especially in the past highly disputed border between Yemen and Eritrea: Apart from the fact that I do not even know exactly how and if this dispute is definitely resolved, are there any islands closer to a continent they do not belong to politically (for example: If these islands belong to Yemen (which I believe), is there any of these islands that is closer to Africa than to the Asia/Arabian Peninsula? If yes, at least Yemen would not only be a country with non-contiguous territory on several countries because of its (undisputed and) big island Socotra, but also because of (some of) its islands in the Red Sea.
Tectonic consideration: Two major tectonic plates, the African Plate and the Arabian Plate have a common boundary in this area, maybe this would help to decide the border between the continents.
A good map for an overwiev (at least in regard to Socotra) can be found here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4b/World-map-2004-cia-factbook-large-2m.jpg. Another map in regard to the island between Yemen and Eritrea could be found here: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/yemen_pol_2002.jpg and here: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/africa/eritrea.gif. Unfortunately, I could not find other maps that display the area in question larger.
-- Citylover 18:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The geographical border between Russia and the United States

A similar "problem" like the border between Yemen and Eritrea is the border between Russia and the United States (with the difference that there, the border is not disputed, as far as I know): Reflects the border between Russia and the United States (region Aleutian Islands and Bering Strait) the geographic border (distances from the mainland) or the tectonic border? If the answer is no, either Russia or the United States (or both, if they both overlap) would be a bicontinental country with non-contiguous territory on several continents? Apart from that, both countries are already bicontinental and both are already non-contiguous countries with territory on several continents anyway (because of Russia's European part and the US overseas territories). -- Citylover 14:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Palau

As far as Palau is concerned, according to the article Oceania, Palau belongs to Oceania. Just theoretically, what if Palau consists maybe of some (isolated) islands in the (north)western part of Palau? Would Palau then still be considered as Oceanian or already Asian or bicontinental? The general question here is: Which islands of (northwestern) Oceania still do belong to Oceania and which of them are unclear or part of Asia? Is the distance between Australia and the Philippines respectively the distance between Australia and Japan or even the distance between Australia and the mainland of Asia important? Or are just all islands that do not belong Malaysia, the Philippines or Japan part of Oceania (Indonesia being a special case, which is discussed elsewhere)?
Are tectonic plates important to define the border between (northwesern) Oceania and Asia?
Tectonic consideration: The Philippine Plate and the Pacific Plate have a common boundary in this area, but I am not sure where exactly (maybe in the East of Palau).
A good map for an overwiev can be found here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4b/World-map-2004-cia-factbook-large-2m.jpg.
-- Citylover 18:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Australia

As far as Australia is concerned, even if one does not take into consideration the areas claimed by Australia on Antarctica or islands claimed by Australia but which are still in the Australian antarctic territory, Australia is clearly a country with non-contigous territory on several continents because of Christmas Island, probably because of Cocos (Keeling) Island (both, especially Christmas Island being closer to Asia than to Australia/Oceania) and most certainly because of Heard Island and McDonald Islands being much closer to Antarctica and probably even Africa than to Australia/Oceania.
A good map for an overwiev can be found here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4b/World-map-2004-cia-factbook-large-2m.jpg.
-- Citylover 18:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand

In the case of New Zealand, if the Ross Dependency, the area on Antarctica and the island belonging to the part of Antarctica claimed by New Zealand like for example Ross Island, the Balleny Islands (with their three main islands Young Island, Buckle Island and Sturge Island and several smaller islands like Row Island, Borradaile Islands, Sabrina Islet, The Monolith), Scott Island, and Roosevelt Island is considered being part of New Zealand, New Zealand is also a country with non-contiguous territory on several continents (Oceania and Antarctica). However, if the area on Antarctica and the islands belonging to the part of Antarctica claimed by New Zealand (the Ross Dependency) is not considered being a part of New Zealand, then it becomes unclear if New Zealand is a country with non-contiguous territory on several continents or not. In the latter case, like in the case of South Africa, one would have to decide if some of the islands of New Zealand are (by distance or by tectonic borders) close enough to Antarctica to be considered as Antarctican what would mean that New Zealand would be a country with non-contigous territory on several continents. Especially Campbell Island or the southernmost rock of the rocks that surround Campbell Island, Jacquemart Island could be considered as the decisive landmark to measure the distances (to Antarctica and New Zealand/Oceania) from. Another question might arise here if New Zealand can be considered as the "mainland" of Australia/Oceania or if only Australia is the mainland of Australia/Oceania (see also the article Oceania about the definition of Oceania).
Tectonic consideration: In the area south of New Zealand, there are three tectonic plates, the Antarctic Plate having a common boundary with the Australian Plate in the West and with the Pacific Plate in the East, maybe this would help to decide (but in my opinion, tectonic plates should not be much less important than distances)).
A good map for an overwiev can be found here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4b/World-map-2004-cia-factbook-large-2m.jpg.
-- Citylover 18:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey, Russia, Egypt and Panama

First of all, Turkey, Russia, Egypt and Panama are considered "ordinary" bicontinental countries because most of their the territory is comprised of one single mainland on two continents (in the case of both Turkey and Russia, the majority of the mainland is Asian, the minority European).

Turkey and Russia:

Because of the fact that Turkey and Russia have maritime boundaries on two different continents, it is also very likely that they have (at least very small) islands along these seashores. Indeed, not only Russia (where it is clear anyway, for a better overview about Russia, see also http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4b/World-map-2004-cia-factbook-large-2m.jpg.) but also Turkey have at least one bigger island on their European part (for a map of Turkey, see http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/61/Turkiyemap.gif. There, you can see a quite big Turkish island West of Cannakale (southwest of Istanbul)). Therefore, Turkey and Russia are not only bicontinental countries in a classical sense like landlocked countries like [[1]], but Turkey and Russia are also countries with non-contiguous territory on several continents.

Egypt and Panama:

The same applies to Egypt and Panama: Because of the fact that both countries have a mainland on two different continents and both parts are not landlocked, both parts must also have islands. Therefore, both countries should be considered countries with non-contiguous territory on several continents. In the case of Panama, there is the further complication that there are different versions of the border between the Americas (see below). -- Citylover 09:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean (Venezuela, Colombia, Bahamas, Panama)

Several countries in or near the Caribbean (for example, the Netherlands Antilles, some remote islands of Venezuela like Isla Aves, some remote islands of Colombia like San Andrés and Providencia) may also be countries with non-contiguous territory on several continents. While the Netherlands Antilles belong to the Netherlands and the Netherlands is a country with non-contiguous territory on several continents anyway because the Netherlands are on a completely other continent - in Europe - at least Venezuela and Colombia may be additionally countries with non-contiguous territory on several continents.
For maps about these territories, see also: Leeward Islands (for Isla Aves) and http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/americas/central_america_ref02.jpg (for the Caribbean in general and the islands San Andrés and Providencia).

There might be other smaller countries in the Caribbean where it might not be clear where they belong to because of geographical (in terms of distance to continents) or tectonical considerations. Furthermore, the definition of North America, Middle America, Central America, South America and Caribbean seems not always clear. For example the close proximity of the Nortwestern parts of the Bahamas to Florida arises the question if the Bahamas or at least a part of it are not North American (in a narrower sense of the term North American) and the Bahamas therefore a bicontinental country. On the mainland, there seem to be different opinions where the border between the Americas is. In the case of Panama, there is the further complication that there are different versions of the border between the Americas. In some of these versions, Panama would be entirely a South American country (therefore the border between Costa Rica and Panama being the border between South America and Central/North America), although (at least it seems to me like this) the common version is the Panama Canal/Isthmus of Panama as the border. Other opinions see the whole country of Panama as a North American country (therefore the border between Colombia and Panama being the border between South America and Central/North America), other versions see the Isthmus of Tehuantepec far North in Mexico as the border. I think we should include all theses opinions in all relevant places. Now, the information is dispersed among several different places. See also the articles North America, Central America, Middle America, South America, Caribbean, West Indies, the first section of the article Transcontinental nation (by the way, in this section, three of the four conflicting versions of the border between North and South America in Panama are found, the forth version is found in the article North America), the second section of the article Transcontinental nation, Isthmus of Panama, Isthmus of Tehuantepec, Antilles, Greater Antilles, Lesser Antilles. -- Citylover 09:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia (country) and Azerbaijan

A similar case, similar to the case of Turkey and Russia mentioned just above, is Georgia (country) and Azerbaijan but with the complication that it depends on the definition of Europe and Asia. With line B taken as the definition between Asia an Europe (see map, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcontinental_nation#Europe_and_Asia), Georgia (country) and Azerbaijan are completely Asian, so there would be no difficulties. With line C taken as the definition between Asia and Europe, the case would already become more complicated: Georgia (country) would be a bicontinental country with a mainland on two different continents and non-contiguous territory on one of those two continents, Asia (because of the Asian islands Georgia might have in the Black Sea). Azerbaijan would also become a bicontinental country with two different mainlands (Asia and Europe) but since both mainlands would not be landlocked and have a maritime boundary (and very likely some islands), Azerbaijan would become a bicontinental country with non-contiguous territory on several continents and islands on two different continents very close to the mainland (similar to Russia). With the defining lane generally chosen by this article, the situation for Azerbaijan would remain the same (except the line being further in the South), but Georgia would only now become a bicontinental country with non-contiguous territory on several continents, due to the fact that it has a mainland on two different continents and a seashore on both mainlands. (in the case of Armenia, these considerations are unnecessary because Armenia is completely landlocked anyway). -- Citylover 09:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia

Indonesia, lies not only on the Asian continent, but also on the Oceanian continent, regardless of the line that defines the border between Asia and Oceania (the Wallace line or the Melanesian definition, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcontinental_nation#Asia_and_Oceania). If the definition of the Wallace line applies to Indonesia, according to this arcticle, 60.84 percent of the Indonesian area is Asian (while 39.16 percent of the Indonesian area is Oceanian) and 87.3 percent of the Indonesian population lives in Asia while 12.7 percent of the Indonesian population lives in Oceania. If the definition of the Melanesian line applies, even a bigger percentage of the area and population is Asian and an even smaller percentage of the area and population is Oceanian. Nevertheless, even if the Melanesian line applies, Indonesia is still a country (at least by area) that has no clear mainland nor a very small percentage of population and especially area on just one single continent. So, Indonesia is actually a special case, a bicontinental country with a mainland (or - in the case of Indonesia, one could also argue that it has no mainland or several mainlands) on two continents.
Tectonic consideration: As already mentioned in the discussion here, the Eurasian Plate shares a common boundary with the Australian Plate in Indonesia. According to the article Wallace line, this tectonic boundary coincides with the Wallace line, but on the map of the tectonic plates, the boundary between the Eurasian Plate and the Australian Plate is much further to the West (even more to the West than the Melanesian line, also mentioned in this article). Why is that? Is the tectonic division of Indonesia is not consistent with its geographic/biological/linguistic division or is it consistent? (Then, the statement "The geological and zoological border follows the Wallace line" of this article here should also be reconsidered). -- Citylover 09:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Russia and Europe

Seeing that Russia is given as an example of a transcontinental nation, a note should be put somewhere that in Russia 'Europe' is not considered as a continent at all, so the Russians don't consider their own country to be transcontinental, but entirely contained on the Eurasian continent. Seabhcán 12:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia (country) and Azerbaijan inaccuracies and inconsistencies

In the article it is claimed in one section ("Europe and Asia") that "The majority of Georgia's and Azerbaijan's populations live in Europe, and two-thirds of the Georgian territory and a little less than half of Azerbaijan's territory are in Europe. However, they are often excluded today from lists of European states (unlike Russia and Turkey, with proportionally less European territory and population)." However in another section ("Countries in both Asia and Europe") it is then stated that "Azerbaijan - according to most definitions which consider the Caucasus as the Europe-Asia boundary, this country has a relatively small portion in Eastern Europe but lies mostly in SouthWestern Asia." and "Georgia is geographically almost completely (except for a small section at its northern border that lies north of the Caucasus watershed) in Asia according to virtually all major geographic authorities such as the National Geographic Society and the CIA World Factbook. However, for the purpose of this study, it is considered to be divided between both." and the Statistics section has 70% of Georgia and 45% of Azerbaijan being in Europe (even though directly above that section the article states that most of Georgia is in Asia)! Now how can the majority of Georgia's and Azerbaijan's populations live in Europe if most of Georgia and Azerbaijan are geographically in Asia? The line drawn on the map for both countries is incorrect (and the possible source of this inconsistency) since the Caucasus watershed boundary (which is the boundary used in the article) and the peaks of Caucasus are pretty much one and the same. The Caucasus mountains do not run south of Baku and most maps have the line for the watershed following the high points of the mountain range and just managing to go into or south of Baku. If this were reflected in the article then the Europe-Asia boundary would closely follow the Georgia-Russia border and only be slightly south of the political border (basically following the line of the mountains within Georgia). Unless most of Georgia's population is located in this mountainous area directly along the border, then the first statement in the article in incorrect. These inaccuracies (both in the text and the map) need to be cleaned up. As for the Statistics section, it needs to be recalculated, but I would roughly estimate (using the line along the mountains that is drawn by most geographical societies and maps) that around 10% or less of Georgia is in Europe and around 20% or less of Azerbaijan is in Europe.

Transcontinental empires in history

For the colonial era empires: 1)why are the various claims in Antarctica not included? and 2) which territory in South America did the United States ever possess? Shouldn't the United States possessions be listed as spanning 3 continents (North America, Asia and Oceania)?

Recent edits by DLinth, User:24.161.41.93, User:4.155.87.40, User:61.59.83.208, User:169.253.4.21 and User:4.155.250.113

I have to say that I find the edits on articles relating to Asia, Europe, Eurasia and Countries in both Asia and Europe to be lacking in NPOV. They strike me as much more prescriptive, dogmatic and normative than what is reasonable for a contentious or debatable topic like this. These users leave no room for alternative views with phrases such as "unsupportable delineations", "must necessarily", "by some undefined path", "now accepted worldwide", "the experts concur" and "side being ill-defined". And the recent edit displays sources smack in the middle of the text and not placed along with the other sources provided. Also, the namedropping of places like Morocco and New Zealand seems utterly out-of-place and irrelevant to the Caucasus-Urals dividing line. Unless something better is produced, either by DLinth or another user, I will revert to a more acceptable version and we can move on from there. Please discuss! :] //Big Adamsky 19:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; these repeated WP:POV edits are irksome. E Pluribus Anthony 23:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; also I have seen the same repeated in Geography of Europe. So maybe it is happening at Geography of Asia too. Alinor 13:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are really annoying, yes. —Nightstallion (?) 20:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great – I'm glad I'm not alone: I was starting to wonder if I was being 'petty'. And what if he persists? E Pluribus Anthony 20:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Oceania a continent?

For the purposes of this article, is Oceania a continent, as opposed to an absence of continents?

If it were to counted (which is contrary to the meaning of continent), we need extensive rewriting. If it is not, the claim that certain countries (the United States and others) are transcontinental should be mentioned only under Oceania, and not above. Septentrionalis 16:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Empire

I've changed the alias used for the link to the article "American Empire" since by historical definition, there is an American Empire and to called them "American Possessions" would be incorrect in two ways. Firstly, they would be "United States Possessions" or "Possessions of the United States of America" or b) The same type of empire that Great Britain, Germany, France or any other nation in the world with such "possessions". On top of that, the article of which it links to is called American Empire.

I wouldn't consider it politically incorrect, especially in historical context, to call it such. Andem 10:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_transcontinental_countries&oldid=36341303"