Talk:Mediterranean Sea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Oceans (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oceans, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of oceans, seas, and bays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Geography (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Europe (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Some controversial additions to the "Environmental history" section[edit]

The recent additions by User:Serten contain some fairly bold claims: for example: the wide ecological diversity typical of Mediterranean Europe was man made. Do we have any reliable sources to verify this? Jarble (talk) 02:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

First I am surprised that you think that is a bold claim - ecological diversity in Europe and other densily (human) populated areas is and has been mostly man-made and closely connected to traditional (agri)cultural use patterns and property / usage differences. Any basic textbook of environmental history will confirm that, take Joachim Radkau, Bernd Hermann, Uelkötter and others or refer to landscape types as heath, shrubland, transhumance or wood pasture. The med contains a lot of islands, Peninsulas, a highly varied geology and a extremly long coastline (longer than the non Maghreb Afrika) with a lot of Altitudinal zonation and together with the ferticle crescent had a head start with the most animal species useable as livestock world wide. In sofar the combination of natural and human factors is quite special and provides the base for a extremely high eco diversity.
That said, the factoid in question is rather trivial and either you check as said a basic taxtbook, or the source given itself "The Nature of Mediterranean Europe: An Ecological History" or - to make your live easier - you already can find that in the review by Brian M. Fagan on Project MUSE. In a nutshell: People have already transformed most parts of Mediterranean Europe 4,000 years ago and the man-made diversity typical of Mediterranean Europe is and has been based on the continued occupation by people gaining their livelihoods locally. Serten (talk) 08:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
No, it is not man-made, but it is human-influenced. Man did not put all of the plants and animals there, although of course his actions have shaped their distribution etc. Bazonka (talk) 08:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
One might doubt the wording, but its quite OK to call "diversity" man made. Thats the scientific perspective which is sometimes counterintuitive. Take a simple meadow, heath or alpine transhumance "Alm": Without human influence you would have a boring but highly sustainable forest, only repeated and in some ways highly disruptive human influences render highly ecodiverse and specific habitats possible. Thats man made diversity, nothing else. Actually the highest eco diversity in Germany have miitary training camps, large industrial sites and the outskirts of large cities, the Munich Panzerwiese (tank meadow) became a Habitats Directive, the Wagbachniederung, a former molasse sewage plant is now among the most important bird conservation areas in middle europe and so forth. In either case, I agree with you, the species felt invited themselves. ;) Serten (talk) 09:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
The wording is definitely wrong. "The ecological diversity was man-made" implies that humans actively put all of the plants and animals in place, which of course is nonsense. I have reworded the article to indicate that the diversity was instead shaped by mankind. Bazonka (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Who told you so? The original wording is the scientific one. Better keep up with the science. Serten (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


@Bazonka, Serten, and Epipelagic: Also, these statements appear to lend undue weight to the writings of Alfred Thomas Grove and Oliver Rackham, which they rely upon. Jarble (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't disagree with that. Bazonka (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Serten is currently applying the same undue weight to Tragedy of the commons based on the same book, The Nature of Mediterranean Europe. Who knows where this will go if Serten reads another book. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
@Epipelagic and Serten: Still, it might be appropriate to include this information as long as it is discussed alongside other significant viewpoints. The views of these authors should not overshadow the other perspectives in this article. Jarble (talk) 01:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
@ Jarble: I dont see a problem with overshadowing, as the perspective about hazards and env. history was not mentioned at all in the previous version. To underline your point about "undue weight" you have to mention other of similar credentials that a) researched the environmental history of the med to the extent Grove and others did and b) contradict Rackham / Grove or Radkau.
@ Epipelagic: Is it really so bad when someone comes up with actual science? I have just started to give an outlook on The Nature of Mediterranean Europe respectively the environmental history of the region and wrote an article about Alfred Thomas Grove. His credentials are great and exactly cvovering the articles topic. The book with Rackham alone would be an excellent base of a separate article Environmental history of of Mediterranean Europe, as he summarizes and puts into context centuries of reasearch and popular believes about the nature of the Med. As long as Epipelagic or others don't discuss or provide actual science but just express a fear of actual science being able to endanger their believes, thats a bad start. If you have doubts about the conclusions - and can provide actual science countering it - so start listing evidence, but not private opionion. Serten (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Serten II: I'm still confused by some parts of this discussion. Earlier you mentioned that the "highest eco diversity in Germany have miitary training camps, large industrial sites and the outskirts of large cities.". Is this statement supported by any third-party sources? Jarble (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jarble:. It may sound surprising to lay people, but its basic freshman stuff and applies not only to Germany. Check the sources for "Species diversity has been found to peak in fringe regions between urban and rural areas" in urban ecology. Its a trivial part of the legal setup of zoning and planning law, compare quote (diversity is higher in large cities compared to agricultural zones, City of Bremen Zoning planning). The whole topic was started in the 1925ies, found a larger focus since the 1980ies and of cause after the wall came down 1989.
  1. Military: See e.g. Konversion und Naturschutz / Dieter Wallschläger and further University of Potsdam hconferences and programs, e.g. http://publishup.uni-potsdam.de/opus4-ubp/frontdoor/index/index/docId/678 or [http://www.tu-cottbus.de/fakultaet4/de/oekologie/forschung/projekte/abgeschlossene-projekte/offenland.html There are even studies how to substitute Missing Dynamics on Former Military Training Areas http://pub.uni-bielefeld.de/publication/1636124 after they have been left by the military. Serten II (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Serten II and Epipelagic: Nonetheless, I would expect pristine landscapes such as old-growth forests to be more biodiverse than urban or agricultural areas. Is my intuition correct? Jarble (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Serten II: Earlier in this discussion, you wrote that "Without human influence you would have a boring but highly sustainable forest". Would human activities reduce the amount of biodiversity in an old-growth forest with no previous human influence? Jarble (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Your intuition is the common wisdom, but completely on the wrong track. First, there is nothing like a "pristine" forest and biodiversity in a given biotop or as such is no realistic goal per se but a sort of ideology, trying to fight globalization. Compare Radkau, era of ecology p617 (german). The most pristine forests in Europe are former royal hunting grounds protected from farmers sending their cattle in. As well in the US "wilderness" does not exist any more since humans started to use fire. Traditional (and different) forms of Agriculture produced the highest diversity in Europe till the 1930ies, you cannot go back there without force, either on people or by machines. 08:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Serten II: Is it possible that agriculture could be beneficial to biodiversity in Europe, in spite of its harmful effects on the natural environment? Jarble (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, it depends on the technology - and as well on the patterns of agriculture. 1930ies agriculture was highly beneficial to biodiversity. But would you like to force people to turn back to those days? And to quote another WP article with strong defictits doesnt help with your question. Better read actual science ;) Serten II (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Expansion of the Tourism, tons of places in the Mediterranean Sea, lets go Wikipedia[edit]

Expansion of the Tourism, tons of places in the Mediterranean Sea, lets go Wikipedia. David Adam Kess (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

a good idea, but my spanish is good, but not good enough to translante.:CHEERS but i still want an expansion of the Tourism, tons of places in the Mediterranean Sea, lets go Wikipedia. David Adam Kess (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Redundant links and icons[edit]

I've removed the flag icons and associated redundant links as I see no need for all those little images and the link redundancy they include. If anyone feels the icons are essential then please explain your reasoning. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mediterranean Sea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems the default alignment gods have awakened, and they are not pleased ...[edit]

... now---after two+ days and 5 intervening edits---they have reverted my attempt to place a normal graphic (glamorous though it is, in this case) above an infobox template. I have accomplished this small act of art on other pages without being rejected, --so now, what's up with "Infobox Med Sea"? (Pls note my article edit of 10 November---which presented "nicely" (= glamorous graphic on top, with infobox below it) for more than 2 days!)

Is there a doctor in the house? That is, will someone knowledgeable of template design (and of high authority) please "fixit" (this infobox) so a happy lede composition can prevail? Or, if the worst is true, pls advise as to why I am (we all are) doomed by the whims of the Elevated Defaults. Thanks, and Regards.. //Jbeans (talk) 00:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Clarification on the "Settlements" section of the infobox?[edit]

What is the purpose of the Settlements section below the 'Islands' section of the infobox? I understand that it is a list of settlements, but what is the significance of those settlements in particular? Why leave out, say, Marseille? What are the criteria for being listed there? --Thek826 (talk) 00:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, some have taken issue with my corrections of the Mediterranean Sea page to be geographical instead of political. Rather than support the opposing position with facts, they simply criticised. Can those of you who take issue please explain to me why you feel it is necessary to politicise a geographical entry? Geography should be completely separate from politics. In the case of the Mediterranean Sea (and the lands surrounding it), no matter how much you or others have a deep personal desire to have a country called "Palestine" exist, it does not. I would like very much to be a cardiothoracic surgeon, but I highly doubt anyone would let me cut open their chest and do a bypass. So, unless someone can come up with legal proof that such a country as "Palestine" exists, by including it in the section on the Mediterranean Sea you have corrupted an entry on geography. While I was so desperately hoping that Scotland would vote for independence last summer, when the plebiscite did not pass, I did not immediately go to Wikipedia and change that region of the UK north of England to the "Jacobian Stuart Kingdom of Scotland." I will give those opposing the correction toward fact-based geography the opportunity to change the Mediterranean Sea entry back to what reflects geographic reality. I think it is important that someone other than myself do it to prove that it is understood that geography is geography, not some subjective and arbitrary platform for the expression of personal political opinions. Dpbf (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)DPBF

spellings[edit]

I noticed the article had American Spellings in it, and I looked to the original version of the article, and, the Americans had written it, used "kilometer" as opposed to "kilometre" so there it is. I switched the article back accordingly.

British English seems more appropriate to me, as that's the variant that's spoken in the English-speaking territories around the sea (Gibraltar, Akrotiri & Dhekelia, Malta). It's not always about the variant that the article first used. Bazonka (talk) 11:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Which version is more prevalent in Spain, Italy, France? Also countries on the med. It really is almost always about the first variant the article used, especially as all the places you named, save Gibraltar, don't have English as their official language.
Wrong and wrong. Akrotiri and Dhekelia are British territories so British English is their official language, and English is one of the official languages of Malta - Maltese English of course, but that's much closer to BrE than to AmE. As for the variant we use in articles, see WP:ENGVAR. In this case, MOS:TIES applies which trumps the which-was-used-first approach. (It does not matter which version is most used in Spain etc. as these are not native English-speaking countries, although I would expect that the majority of speakers there use the European variant, i.e. BrE.) Also, please remember to sign your posts in future. Bazonka (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi protect request edit on 6 July 2016[edit]

Being a popular article it over course needs protection to prevent vandalism...2601:183:4000:D5BD:C462:4A21:EEED:F26 (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Padlock-dash2.svg Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Stickee (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Settlement criterion[edit]

Is there a criterion for "settlement" in the infobox? Gaza should probably be there - by size and notability its very close to Tel-Aviv. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC) Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Cyprus[edit]

Cyprus include the Northern Cyprus ( self-declared state (recognised only by Turkey), see also History of Cyprus at #Modern era, and in the introduction to this article, it is not very useful to clarify this particular point. Thank you for your opinions. Bear-rings (talk) 14:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Who decides it is not useful to include something that physically exists, even if generally not recognised?? Whether you like it or not, Northern Cyprus exists and therefore can be included. The fact that it is only recognised by Turkey is neither here nor there. If you arrive in North Nicosia who will check your passport - the Republic of Cyprus or the state of Northern Cyprus?? Wikipedia exists to provide as much information as possible. Just because you don't approve of the existence of Northern Cyprus is not sufficient reason for removing content. Before you remove this content again, please get general consensus to do so. Thank you. Denisarona (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Your answer: Just because you don't approve of the existence of Northern Cyprus is a personal attack and does not respond to the topic. Cyprus is an island consisting of both State parties and it is easy to find the details in the corresponding article and other. Expect the notice of other contributors, thank you. Bear-rings (talk) 08:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
That doesn't seem like a personal attack to me, and it is certainly not off-topic. My opinion is that Northern Cyprus does de facto exist, and it is notable; therefore it should be mentioned in this article, but of course it needs an explanatory note to show that it is disputed. Bazonka (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Just because you don't approve of the existence of Northern Cyprus is not a personal attak ? Bear-rings (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
It's personal, but my view is that it's not an attack. Seems like a relevant comment to me. You can raise it at WP:ANI if you strongly disagree, but I wouldn't advise it. Bazonka (talk) 05:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Back to the subject of including Northern Cyprus or not, in my opinion it would be best to not include it in "list of countries" as it is not a country that is acknowledged by the UN, but it can be included into the section directly below it which starts with "Several other territories also border...", and it can have the caveat attached to it that it is only acknowledged by Turkey. - Takeaway (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

This boils down to that old question of what is a country. If we're sticking to UN members only, then your solution seems OK. But in another sense Northern Cyprus is still a country - a largely-unrecognised state is still a state with recognition - and so arguably it should remain (with explanatory note) in the countries section. Bazonka (talk) 05:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
If I remember well, the State of Palestine was successfully removed each time from the country list until they finally received a certain measure of recognition by the UN. There are similar cases on Wikipedia where unrecognised states/territories aren't mentioned in a country list. See for instance the infobox of Caucasus, or Somaliland in the Horn of Africa article. It seems to me that Wikipedia needs to draw a line somewhere and that it should not be up to Wikipedians where that line is. UN recognition would seem to be the most reliable source when it comes down to when something is or isn't a "country". - Takeaway (talk) 09:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that is what I'm thinking as well. Athenean (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)