Template talk:Sovereign states of Europe/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Republic of Macedonia

As »pesky Slovene« (this goes to Shallot :--) (see MediaWiki_talk:SFRY)) I would like to change current designation of Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in this footer to (at least) Republic of Macedonia - since the article itself has such a name and it is also shorter. Any objections? --XJamRastafire 11:04, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Being neither Slovene nor Macedonian, I totally agree.

Jakob Stevo 22:01, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

This should remain as it is so as not to confuse the modern-day state with the Greek province of the same name, if you were Greek you´d feel the Macedonians were trying to make a name for themselves off of Ancient Greek history.
It seems someone changed it in the meantime to say just "Macedonia", I'll amend it a bit. --Shallot 12:16, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
If nobody minds, I'll change it to FYR Macedonia, which atleast indicates there's still a dispute about the name but is shorter than either "Republic of Macedonia" or the full expansion of FYROM. Aris Katsaris 20:38, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The official name is FYR Macedonia specifically for NPOV reasons, to avoid upsetting Greece who do not want an apparant claim to parts of Macedonia that are within its boundaries. CheeseDreams 00:12, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Macedonia" links to Republic of Macedonia, inevitably causing confusion with Macedonia proper. Who can explain this discrepancy?--Theathenae 29 June 2005 11:52 (UTC)

2006

The templates now say R. Macedonia or Republic of Macedonia. This discussion has been done to death and back on Talk:Republic of Macedonia. We may have to go back to FYR Macedonia if any of the other Macedonias become republics, which seems unlikely now. --GunnarRene 20:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. —Nightstallion (?) 13:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Geographic definition and stuff

If we include Turkey and Georgia because of those bits of their territory that's in Europe, should we also include Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan? All these corner cases are a bit unwieldy... --Shallot 20:25, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd say we should follow the country list at Europe, so yes to Turkey, no to Georgia etc. Matthewmayer 00:13, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Europe mentions three additional countries after the main list, so we might as well add them here. -- User:Docu

User:Wik has been removing the following countries from the list: Azerbaijan, Georgia and Kazakhstan. Portions of these countries lie in Europe, in the same way that a portion of Turkey lies in Europe, but Wik is not removing Turkey, so his removal of these other countries is not consequential to his own criteria. Perhaps he should explain his reverts in the summary, instead of using the vacuous 'rv' or the childish 'rv moron'. --Cantus 00:35, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Kazakhstan, at least, is pretty ridiculous. The part of Kazakhstan that is in Europe is only in Europe in an utterly marginal way. I'm pretty dubious about Azerbaijan, too. Not sure about Georgia. How about Cyprus, which joins the EU on Saturday? john 01:23, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that Georgia and Kazakhstan should be put in this MediaWiki. WhisperToMe 05:07, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

CIA - The World Factbook -- Field Listing - Location lists as partially located in Europe: Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Turkey, but not Cyprus nor Georgia. List all four or none? Pædia | talk 16:02, 2004 May 3 (UTC)

Russia clearly should be listed as part of Europe. Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan should not. So far as I can tell, only insignificant corners of them can be considered to be in Europe. Georgia probably should not, either. Turkey has a small but significant part that is clearly in Europe (unlike Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, which have parts in Europe based around vaguely defined borders in the east), and likes to consider itself a European country. Cyprus is clearly not geographically in Europe, but it is a member of the EU. john 17:18, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

The Columbia Encyclopedia states of Europe 'By convention, it is separated from Asia by the Urals and the Ural River in the east; by the Caspian Sea and the Caucasus in the southeast; and by the Black Sea, the Bosporus, the Sea of Marmara, and the Dardanelles in the south.' The majorities of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Turkey are in Asia. What makes parts of one more significant than others? In Azerbaijan the 'insignificant corner...considered to be in Europe' contains the capital Baku. Why 'Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan should not', but 'Georgia probably should not'? Georgia is south of the Caucasus, hence the highest point in Europe (Mount Elbrus, 5633 m) is located in Russia. Pædia | talk 20:02, 2004 May 3 (UTC)

Georgia is fine to not be. On the other hand, Europe is frequently considered a cultural entity. As largely Christian countries, Georgia and Armenia (and Cyprus) would probably be considered to be more European than Azerbaijan or Kazakhstan, even though they're geographically in Asia. At any rate, The border of Europe at the Dardanelles was the original defining feature of Europe. There's water, it's easy to determine. The borders of Europe along the Caucasus and the Urals are rather more difficult to figure out. The eastern Caucasus kind of peter out, and it's pretty arguable that Baku is on the southern side. And saying that part of Kazakhstan is in Europe is completely arbitrary - the Ural mountains peter out north of the Kazakh border. On the other hand, Istanbul is a European city by any definition, and Russia has been a major European power since the 18th century. john 00:28, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I had the understanding that Template:Europe is geographic, with Template:EU countries (or Template:EU countries and candidates) and Council of Europe (all the above except Kazakhstan) as the political equivalents. If this is wrong, I apologise.
You would be correct to say the border 'along the Caucasus' 'are rather more difficult to figure out' and 'arguable that Baku is on the southern side.' Can we at least agree that northern Azerbaijan is in geographic Europe?
However, the border extends by 'the Ural River in the east', including a minor section of Kazakhstan.
It probably is more correct to state 'Istanbul is a European city by any definition' except culturally Middle Eastern.
Pædia | talk 05:37, 2004 May 6 (UTC)

Hi Paedia. I don't really have the energy to argue about this stuff anymore, although I'm glad you're willing to actually discuss this stuff, instead of just reverting. To be honest with you, I have no idea what Template:Europe and its equivalents are for. My only real feeling is that only one of these should be listed at the bottom of any particular country page, and as such, we should have to decide on one region for each country to be in. By that standard, I'd say only Russia of the various questionable cases ought to go in Europe, and the rest should go in Middle East or Central Asia. But whatever. I don't see how these things are especially useful at all. Why do we need a table at the bottom of every country page linking it to every other country on the same continent with it? Why is this useful? And that's all I'll say on the subject for now. Maybe if I get up the energy for a fight at some time in the future, I'll just list all these pages on VfD. Until then, do what you like - obviously on the factual question of what countries geographically have bits in Europe, you are right, I just question the usefulness of this whole endeavor. john 06:18, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I'd include Cyprus and Turkey and pretty much every country in the EU. Also countries that take part in the Eurovision Songcontest should be considered. Kazachstan and Azerbijan are to far away. In mopst geography sources I know of they are seen as part of Asia. --MGM 07:07, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

Israel participates in the song contest. Is it in Europe? David.Monniaux 08:02, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
No.

I was under the opinion that Europe ended at the Bosphorus and Dardanels, only including Turkey due to the bit near Constantinople. CheeseDreams 00:15, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That is true
Istanbul (Not Constantinople) :p --Focoe 15:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
good timing %\ --tasc 15:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. I just keep outdoing myself=)) --Focoe 20:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Flag?

Why does this article include the European Union flag? --Gutza 13:55, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's the European flag, not exclusively the European Union flag. -- User:Docu
See Logo & Flag page of the Council of Europe (not an EU body) here –Hajor
See earlier discussion at Talk:Europe. After EU taking over the flag, it is a POV that it stil is a European flag, but certainly not a NPOV. Therefore it should not be reinserted. --Arnejohs 10:15, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
*sighs*
Look, it is the flag of the Council of Europe, and hence of Europe the continent - this is a statement of fact, not a POV. Whether or not it is the flag of the EU as well is irrelevent to whether or not this is a fact.
Similarly, we have the flag of Chad on the pages about Romania (or vice versa) - just because two entities use the same flag, doesn't mean that we have to chose which one we prefer to claim has proper ownership (which really is a POV).
You yourself said that we, as an encyclopædia, should attempt to be correct in all things, not just the ones that are so in the popular consiousness. This is one of those points.
I suppose we could have a footnote pointing out that the flag is also used by the EU, but that they are wholly distinct entities and uses...
James F. (talk) 10:42, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
  1. The EU flag (even the image file is named Eunion.png) was removed from the Europe article April 3. No one has argued that it should be inserted. I take that as an agreement.
  2. A flag is a symbol and in the MediaWiki it is used as such. That is: It should give the wanted associations. This is not the case here since it is being used in different contexts causing confusion.
  3. As long as this is causing a discussion it is a POV to include the flag. Not including the flag is not an action; it is simply avoiding an action that is causing discussion. Not to include the EU flag in the European context certainly is consistent with the NPOV policy of Wikipedia.
  4. Even though the European Council proposed the flag used for all the European countries, they use a different logo today (with an e in the middle of the stars) in order to avoid confusion with the EU flag.
  5. I do not believe Albania, Andorra, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia , Iceland, Liechtenstein, Macedonia, Moldova, Monaco, Norway, Romania, Russia, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine and Vatican City find it naturally being labelled in an serious encyclopædia by the most pronounced symbol of the European Union, their flag. Do you?
Arnejohs 11:16, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
Oh, never mind. I can see that we're not going to agree (though I would disagree about the removal of something not being an action). I give up (but not in).
I suppose there's a first time for everything. ;-)
James F. (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
Hi Jdforrester, I hate being the stubborn one, but I think you have a nice way of stating the disagreement in a way by which we both can be open to reconsider the case in the future. Certainly there is a time for everything, may be even a time of giving a flag to a continent. Because in this context Europe is not EU and not even the European Council, but simply the continent Europe (which (by the way) is hard enough to define...). Have a nice day. ---Arnejohs 20:46, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

It is NOT the flag of Europe. It is not a flag for Switzerland, Monaco, The Isle of Man, Russia, The Ukraine, etc. in any way whatsoever. CheeseDreams 00:17, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It IS the flag of Europe. Switzerland, Monaco, Russia, and The Ukraine, are all members of the Council of Europe and consequently it is utterly false and nonsense to say that is not a flag for them "in any way whatsoever." Parmaestro 13:10, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And Belarus, Vatican, Kazakhstan are not members.--Nixer 13:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Dependencies

Comparing the List of dependent territories one might wonder which principle guides if a territory is listed as a dependency or not.

/Tuomas 01:12, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I add Åland – tentatively. /Tuomas 16:53, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

CIA - The World Factbook -- Field Listing - Dependency status lists Jan Mayen and Svalbard as equivalents to Gibraltar. Pædia 16:02, 2004 May 3 (UTC)
Paedia: I have also been wondering if not Jan Mayen and Svalbard should be included. I guess the Factbook is right in this case. --Arnejohs 16:14, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
Jan Mayen and Svalbard are integral parts of Norway, just like Åland is an integral part of Finland. --Wik 18:41, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
Jan Mayen may be considered an integral part of Norway, but not Svalbard, which has a special arrangement through the Svalbard Treaty. --Arnejohs 18:46, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
By the treaty it became an integral part of Norway; the other provisions of the treaty don't detract from that. --Wik 19:00, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

The key phrase (the opening decission, actually) of the LoN's arbitration on Åland actually is

"The sovereignty of the Åland Islands is recognised to belong to Finland

...which is not the same as "The Åland Islands are recognised to belong to Finland". The islands's autonomy is guaranteed by international treaties, which Finland has followed rather minutiously, like their de-militarized status, which has not been exactly as minutiously respected. Which is the criterion used for inclusion/exclusion? By the way; Nice to see you've found the talk page, Wik! /Tuomas 13:54, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Åland is one of six provinces (laanit, singular - laani)—Aland, Etela-Suomen Laani, Ita-Suomen Laani, Lansi-Suomen Laani, Lappi, Oulun Laani—and therefore currently not a territory.
CIA - The World Factbook -- Field Listing - Dependent areas lists Gibraltar, Jan Mayen, and Svalbard as territories of their respective sovereign nations. Stating that they are 'integral parts of Norway' would be like Navassa Island, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, and a few Pacific Islands as 'integral parts of' the U.S.. Pædia 17:30, 2004 May 5 (UTC)
I guess that means that Wikipedia's "litmus test" is the listing in the CIA World Factbook. ...well, as a Finn I'm of course pleased, but I'm not quite sure if Ålanders are. ;-) /Tuomas 18:34, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
I would not call it the only 'litmus test', but at least as recognised by the US government. Åland Islands in The Columbia Encyclopedia states 'Under pressure from the Soviet Union, Finland's parliament renounced the League guarantee of autonomy in 1951 but at the same time accorded the islanders additional rights of self-government.' Is this similar to the UK allowing Scotland certain self-governing? Pædia 19:02, 2004 May 5 (UTC)
There you have one of the controversies. /Tuomas 19:44, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
What was the nature of the League of Nations autonomy; a bilateral agreement between Finland and Sweden garanteed by the League? Even if this was the case one might wonder in what sense Finland had the authority to unilaterally cancel these provisions. Though the importance of this question in 1951, ought to have been relatively minor as compared as to the status of the relations to the Soviet Union and not only for Finland, but also for Sweden which had been a contender for the statehood of the islands three decades earlier. -- Mic 15:57, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I don't know exactly how the Russians reasoned, but basically I suspect their line of thought was that the Paris Peace Treaty had (like earlier the Molotow-Ribbentrop Pact and lesser known conversations between London and Moscow) alotted Finland to Soviet's sphere of interest; and Soviet client-states (aka: satellites) were not supposed to have obligations to others unless the obligation in question was in the interest of Russia. The opinion of one of my relatives, who has a professional interest in the issue, is that Åland's position according to international law technically is "disputed" - although a dispute that hasn't been brought up to surface in the last 50 years, as no-one has anything to gain from discussing the issue. Finland is careful not to provoke the Ålanders, who if upset might case international hullabaloo, but also not to provoke Russians - or Swedes. The policy is to adhere to the treaties without discussing whether they are still in force or not. (The ambiguity due to translations of terms "maakunta"/"landskap" to Russian, French or English, follows a broad successful track in the history of Finland's independence process.) /Tuomas 07:54, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Svalbard and Jan Mayen

I have added Svalbard again. There seems to be consensus it should be included. Its article states that it is a dependency, and that it lies "north of mainland Europe". By convention, it is included as part of Europe. If there are any objections, please put them here. Warofdreams 15:17, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

It's very odd to regard Svalbard and Jan Mayen as dependencies. Jan Mayen Is. is a to be considered a part of Nordland county, and Longyearbyen municipality as well as the rest of Svalbard is a part of the Kingdom of Norway. When it is a part of the kingdom it cannot be a dependency. It will be as to regard Northern Ireland a dependency of the United Kingdom, or to claim that Jersey and Guernsey as independent countries. Please begin to listen to the natives, or Wikipedia will only show what the majority of foreigners believe about different topics! Jakro64 20:25, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Norway seems to disagree:
'consists of the western and northern parts of the Scandinavian peninsula as well as the northern territories of Jan Mayen and the Svalbard archipelago'
'foreigner' Pædia 05:42, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)
Norway.org does not disagree. (See better Norway!) It is clearly stated in the article that Jan Mayen and Svalbard are parts of the kingdom, i.e. that they cannot be dependencies. (The Northern Territory in Canada is not a Canadian dependency.) But Norway.org is wrong concerning Queen Maud Land, Peter I Is. and Bouvet Is.: These territories are not parts of the Kingdom, but Norwegian dependencies. Jakro64 10:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Further also Faroe Islands are an integrated part of the kingdom of Denmark and no dependency. The list of dependencies is therefore full of mistakes and not very serious. 213.164.101.242 08:02, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree the criteria seem to be loose. If the articles are correct, Jan Mayen and Svalbard are merely geographically remote but otherwise politically, administratively, and culturally well-integrated territories of Norway. As far as I know they have never had a distinct cultural or political identity or indigenous inhabitants who claim a special status -- i.e. unlike the Faroe Islands. A-giau 16:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge, the Faroe Islands have extensive autonomy and have wanted to become independent a number of times in recent history. They are, maybe, an integrated part of the Kingdom of Denmark, but not of Denmark - same as Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles are integrated part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, but not of the Netherlands. — ナイトスタリオン ㇳ–ㇰ — 16:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Cantus

Why is Cantus constantly reverting all these pages, without making a single comment here? Even Wik has participated in the talk page discussions. john 19:47, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

You need to take a better look at this page, because I have made comments. -Cantus 19:52, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

You made one comment, five days ago, and have not responded to any of the subsequent discussion of that topic. john 19:58, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

You've also reverted 7 times in the last 24 hours. john 20:03, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Cantus: After reviewing the edits, I happen to find myself mildly agreeing with your view (without prejudice to your rivals). Summarize your arguments here, and provide a good layout (using asterisks and daggers -- no superscript numerical footnotes please), and I shall support you. -- Kaihsu 20:05, 2004 May 5 (UTC) (admin)

Mutual Exclusivity

Don't these media wiki continent type tables need to be mutually exclusive? That is to say, Kazakhstan shouldn't be listed here because it is in Template:Central Asia. What we ought to do is divide up all countries and dependent territories into mutually exclusive groups, and then just stick to that. john 20:10, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Just to add - doing this would perhaps be, in some sense, POV. In that case, all of these tables are POV, and should be removed. john 20:12, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

No, they do not have to be mutually exclusive -- that is not how life is. Take Russia, for example. -- Kaihsu 20:19, 2004 May 5 (UTC)
Ditto. --Cantus 20:23, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

My point is that they're useless unless you make them mutually exclusive, because the point of these pages is to use them as a footer on country page articles. Since you generally only have one of these per country page, you have to decide which one each country is going to go on. These pages are not themselves articles, and only have value as far as they are a useful tool on the individual country pages. What's the point of listing Mongolia on MediaWiki:Central Asia, if we don't have a {{msg:Central Asia}} on the Mongolia page?john 20:24, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I'm just going to advocate deleting the whole mess. What useful purpose is served by these pages? john 20:25, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree with deleting the continent articles. Not as important to show all countries on the same continent on each country page. EU and NATO are much more important (see close and military allies at a glance) - having stuff like the continent boxes just encourages people to complain about having ANY boxes! Zoney 17:24, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
I agree too. If I'm reading n article about, say, Belgium and I read that it's in Europe and want to know what other countries aer in Europe, I'll simply click on the link to Europe and see there. What's the point of having this box? --Kpalion 15:43, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Font size

Can an admin please tweak the font sizes? I can't see the list of dependencies clearly. Thanks. ✑whkoh | ✖ 04:15, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Done. --Cantus 07:00, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Holy See

This may be a minor issue, but there are differing opinions about how to list. I propose a compromise to list as "[[Vatican City|Holy See]]" or "[[Holy See]] ([[Vatican City]])".

CIA - The World Factbook -- FAQs states:

The term "Holy See" refers to the authority, jurisdiction, and sovereignty vested in the Pope and his advisors to direct the worldwide Catholic Church. The Holy See has a legal personality that allows it to enter into treaties as the juridical equal of a state and to send and receive diplomatic representatives. Vatican City, created in 1929 to administer properties belonging to the Holy See in Rome, is recognized under international law as a sovereign state, but it does not send or receive diplomatic representatives.

Pædia 15:11, 2004 Jun 17 (UTC)

Poll: Which items should be listed?

Each poll question must be voted by a minimum of 15 users. 70% of support is required for a position to be declared a winner (or 30% or less to be declared a loser). Once a position is declared a winner, the appropiate change must be made to the article.

Should this be listed on Wikipedia:Announcements per Wikipedia:Polling guidelines #4? Pædia 07:18, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. --Cantus 22:06, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Please vote using this format: #~~~ - Optional comments.

Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked 'Discussion'.

OPEN POLLS

Kazakhstan

Votes: 89
Support: 50.6%

Include in list.

Support

  1. pure inuyasha- it has territory in europe so therefore it in in europe.
  2. Cantus - Undisputed and sizable territory in Europe.
  3. SimonP 02:56, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
  4. Nikola 03:55, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
  5. Pædia - Agree with Cantus on this.
  6. Warofdreams 18:42, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  7. Moravice 23:50, 1 June 2004 (UTC)
  8. Gdabski 14:01, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  9. Shallot - Include, with some footnote.
  10. James F. (talk) 09:32, 30 May 2004 (UTC) (vote changed: James F. (talk) 04:41, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC))
  11. Dittaeva 18:47, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  12. Profoss 09:02, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  13. Hokanomono 08:55, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC) - seems to be the same issue as with Russia and Turkey.
  14. Europa 03:43, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC) - Has exactly the same rights to be considered part of Europe as Turkey
  15. Joao Campos 18:28, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  16. Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 18:36, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC) - support with a condition that a disclaimer/footnote is included.
  17. Alinor - support, territory west of Ural river on the european continent by all standarts (if not, then where is the border?). Footer-note needed of course.
  18. Andre (talk) 00:31, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
  19. A D Monroe III 20:06, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) - The eastern border of Europe is ill-defined; we should be inclusive
  20. Yes, with footnote. Bart133 (t) 04:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  21. Nightstallion 12:29, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  22. Beta m (talk) 18:34, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
  23. Wild ride 04:31, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  24. --Monkbel 11:07, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  25. FrancisTyers 03:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) - If Turkey and Russia are in, Kazakhstan should be.
  26. Jacoplane 03:46, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  27. Instantnood 09:06, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  28. --Eigenwijze mustang 08:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) - Got an official invitation to join the Council of Europe
  29. Joolz 18:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  30. Kazakhstan is a member of UEFA and a large part is in Europe.  Grue  10:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  31. Theathenae 29 June 2005 13:26 (UTC) If fellow Turkic Azerbaijan and Turkey are "European", then Kazakstan should be included too. Might as well add the rest of Central Asia while you're at it.
  32. SouthernComfort 3 July 2005 05:20 (UTC)
  33. Lapsed Pacifist 16:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  34. With footnote. -- Elisson • Talk 17:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  35. Why not? Whom can it possibly hurt? This is one of those times when there's no downside to inclusionism. But furthermore, these polls have clearly failed. Among other things, the voting mechanism is laughable — either there's a quick and unfairly sacrosanct resolution or there's eternal and mathematically unbreakable stalemate. We should start again from scratch; please see my suggestion at the bottom of the page. Doops | talk 17:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  36. Brendan OShea 05:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC) - if Turkey (most of it being ASIA MINOR) is in, why not? May as well put South America in Europe because of French Guyana...
  37. Caerwine 03:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  38. See my comments below for an explanation. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 14:45, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  39. By some definitions, Kazakhstan has territory in Europe, this is enough for inclusion in my mind, no matter what induvidual Wikipedians believe about the issue. Personally, I couldn't care less though. --Bjarki 13:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  40. Like previously stated if Turkey and Russia are considered in Europe then Kazakhstan should be as well. --ILDuceMas 15:31 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. Has territory in Europe --Focoe 20:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  42.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 17:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Please observe that below the template, there is a clarifying note that reads "PARTLY IN ASIA". For geographic reasons, I have decided to agree.
  43. --GingerM 19:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  44. Miskin 12:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  45. Sky Walker 14:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC) - Include with footnote, only for geographic reasons.
  46. Support. Much more European than Azerbaijan. Has much Ukrainian, Russian and German populations. Mixed religion structure. Most people speak Russian very well unlike Azerbaijan. Aktubinsk - a typical European city founded by Russians to protect Orenburg.--Nixer 22:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Rmhermen 16:57, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
  2. Matthewmayer 10:58, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  3. blankfaze | •-• 16:05, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  4. ✏ Sverdrup 10:50, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  5. "DICK" CHENEY 01:53, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  6. john k 06:03, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  7. Dmn 07:09, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  8. Merovingian✍Talk 00:57, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
  9. Aris Katsaris 21:01, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC) - Neither Europe nor Kazakhstan consider Kazakhstan part of Europe.
    Actually, the Kazakhstan Embassy in the UK considers Kazakhstan part of Europe. Please see comments. Pædia 03:14, 2004 Jul 24 (UTC)
  10. webkid 13:12, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  11. older≠wiser 13:22, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  12. Ejrrjs 00:49, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  13. Comrade Tassadar 01:39, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC) - I hope I can vote...It seems strange that a nation that essentially is Central Asian would be placed in the Europe template.
  14. PedanticallySpeaking 15:28, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC). Absurd to consider this country European.
  15. Bogdan | Talk 10:58, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  16. CheeseDreams North of pakistan which is in asia.
  17. No way. Dr Zen 11:29, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  18. I do not think so. Blacklite 03:59, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  19. Malyctenar 10:54, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) How could there be overlap with Template:Central Asia?
  20. Teemu Leisti 22:35, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  21. Micga 00:45, 04 Mar 2005 (CET)
  22. 80.255 18:21, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  23. Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 01:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) Since the majority of the Kazakhstani (sp?) territory is in Asia, it belongs under Asia. Not Europe.
  24. EnSamulili Not historically, culturally nor geographically. --EnSamulili 23:39, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  25. Not generally considered part of Europe. 199 11:09, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  26. Barely European geography-wise, and not at all European culture-wise Juppiter 00:32, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  27. *drew 04:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  28. Calton | Talk 07:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC) For what it's worth, Kazakhstan is sharing the Central Asia pavilion at Expo 2005.
  29. Gugganij 19:16, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  30. Stratton 04:05, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)-- Nobody I know would call Kazakhstan a European country.
  31. -- Stereotek 14:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  32. Valentinian 13:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC) I can't think of anybody I know who'd even consider calling Kazakhstan a part of Europe. Geographically, culturally, and historically it belongs to Asia.
  33. KissL 15:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  34. User:WikiFan04Talk 12:44, 18 Jul 2005 (CDT)
  35. Mbisanz 00:02, 21 July 2005 (EST)
  36. Huaiwei 21:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC) I am a geographer, and yes, I consider it firmly Asian. Even in sports, it plays in the Asian Games. Does it play in Europe?
    For football (soccer) it plays in Europe. — Instantnood 08:45, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
    Oh man that sucks. Australia plays with the South American countries for the World Cup qualifyers. I suppose we have a new South America and Oceania continent.--Huaiwei 08:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
    Further worst Australia will be leaving OFC, to join AFC. It'll be playing the Asian Cup qualifiers. — Instantnood 09:18, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
    No, Australia doesn't play with South America. The Oceana winner plays against a South America borderline team for the right to appear; but they're two separate qualifying pools. Doops | talk 05:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
    A better example would perhaps be Israel, which has played in three different pools. — Instantnood 07:59, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  37. Ekem 22:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC) The border between Europe and Asia in the area south of the Ural mountains is arbitrary. Kazakhstan is a Central Asian country with an extension into "Europe" but that does not make it a European country.
  38. --Mehrdad 13:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC) Turkey is the most eastern part of Europe, even parts of Russia is in Asia. Kazakhstan has always been in Asia throughout history, as Georgia, Armenia and all CIS countries. Europeans are trying to broaden their territory and are invading Asia, this is what I call EU conspiracy.
  39. --John72 05:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC) This should be decided by people of Kazakhstan, not us.
  40. --Sherwoodfr 05:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC) We all know this is for land, oil, gas & ...", no one in Europe knows anything or cares about Kazakhstan or other countries which separated from former Russian empire. These countries are called "Central Asian Countries" and have nothing in common with Europe.
  41. --tasc 21:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  42. --Aelfthrytha 23:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  43. --Aldux 17:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No vote

  1. Abstain - Zoney 22:14, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Comments

I've never thought of Kazakhstan as a European country. blankfaze | •-• 16:05, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Nor have I, but it would appear that part of the country does lie in Europe. Warofdreams 18:42, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Whitaker's Almanack - LIST ALL WEBLINKS includes a link to the Kazakhstan Embassy in the UK, that states:

Kazakhstan is a large country located in Europe and Asia; its interests are multifaceted and there is no bias towards one continent or another.

Pædia 20:09, 2004 Jun 5 (UTC)

The part of Kazakhstan that is in Europe is insignificant both in size, and as to being a part of Europe. It is on the most undefined part of the border of Europe, and has played no role whatsoever in the history of Europe. john k 06:03, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it's on the least undefined part of the most undefined part of the border :) I don't think I've seen a single reference to anything other than the Ural river (AKA Zhayq or something like that, near the mouth), and Kazakhstan clearly has territory to the west of it. --Shallot 12:09, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I suppose you're right. But the Ural River was just chosen at random so that there would be some border of Europe in the area south of the Ural Mountains. There is no cultural or historic reason to explain this supposed border - it is simply something made up by geographers. The Urals have at least some vague resonance as the eastern border of Europe. The Ural River, as far as I am aware, really does not. It just happens to be conveniently located to connect the south end of the Ural Mountains to the Caspian Sea. The border of Kazakhstan is equally well suited to that task. john k 16:34, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This box is about the continent Europe, not about the political entity known as Europe. Geographical boundaries, as arbitrary as you think they may be, are what is being argued here. So what if Greenland hasn't played a role in the history of America? It is still a part of that continent. --Cantus 21:33, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The European border is entirely artificial there. One might just as easily say that the present border of Kazakhstan is where Europe ends as say that it's the Ural river. To do so would not present any particular problems. john k 16:57, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Actually that explanation doesn't quite hold much water because we seemed to have accepted that the border is on the Caucasus main range, whereas there are definitions that place that border on the Kuma-Manych Depression. We can't pretend that we're arguing about something deterministic here... --Shallot 19:14, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
If the "border is entirely artificial there", then why not move it to exclude Russia or all former Soviet states? Pædia 05:42, 2004 Jun 18 (UTC)
The border is arbitrary because the notion that Europe is a continent is not based on any geographic properties but on the history of geography. Those who are empassionate about arbitrary borders might better argue that Europe, Afrika, and Asia together form one big continent? In Wikipedia we will have to use the borders that geographers use, although we know that they have chosen the borders arbitrarily. --Hokanomono 09:13, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)
Russia traditionally has been considered a European country. As have Ukraine, the Baltics, Belarus, and Moldova. Excluding them would be ridiculous. Europe is as much a cultural as a geographical construct, and Russia has been considered a part of Europe since the 18th century at least. john k 02:54, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Exactly, but this discussion is not about tradition nor culture but geography. That is why one might not see 'Kazakhstan' in History of Europe, but should be at Europe. Excluding Kazakhstan would be ridiculous, as you say 'Europe is ... a geographical construct'. Pædia 03:14, 2004 Jul 24 (UTC)
Kazakhstan is considered a Central Asian republic, both by itself and by its neighbours as far as I know. Check out the official page of its president: [1] "Kazakhstan is situated in Central Asia, deep in the Eurasian continent." Aris Katsaris 21:07, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
True. We do not argue that it is not a Central Asian republic, which I hope we all agree, but that it is partly in Europe. This according to all authoritative resources and the Kazakhstan Embassy in the UK. Please see comments above. Pædia 03:14, 2004 Jul 24 (UTC)
France is partly in South America, and Spain is partly in Africa, but I would definitely advocate against them being listed among the countries of those continents also. I don't feel that Kazakhstan is *significantly* in Europe, the same way that I don't feel that France is significantly in South America, or Spain significantly in Africa. Aris Katsaris 04:38, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
So you agree that Kazakhstan is in Europe, just not 'significantly', much in the same way as Georgia and Turkey. Actually, (metropolitan) France itself is entirely in Europe but has overseas departments (for administrative purposes) outside of Europe. A map of France should show the mainland and Corsica, not its overseas departments and territorial collectivities. Likewise, Spain has an autonomous community, Canary Islands, and three small Spanish possessions off the coast of Morocco. Ceuta and Melilla on the coast of North Africa have limited autonomous status. Pædia 21:35, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)
I think that Turkey is *very* significantly in Europe -- Its greatest city is Istanbul for example which has more than 10 million population and straddles the border between Asia and Europe. The whole of Georgia straddles the vague geographical borders between Europe and Asia and sees itself as culturally European. I have seen several maps of France (and the European Union) which include its overseas departments: indeed these overseas departments are all depicted upon the Euro notes. And regardless of whether Ceuta and Mellila have "limited autonomous status" they're nonetheless integral parts of Spain -- in Africa. Aris Katsaris 21:58, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kazakhstan has much more european territory than Turkey - both in sq.km. and in % of the whole Kazakhstan. So in geography terms Kazakhstan is more european than Turkey. Also maybe even Russia has less european territory in % of whole Russia. Azerbaidjan is also undisputably consideren european (according to the pool here) and it has much less european territory in both sq.km. and %. Not to mention Cyprus. Alinor 11:47, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, "Kazakhstan is in Europe" according to the Council of Europe - in the late 1990s Kazakhstan submitted application to CoE to get observer status at its Parliamentary Assembly (Mexico, Israel, and others have such status). The PACE (Parl.Assembly of CoE) responded with something similar to "Kazakhstan should not apply for observer status, but for full membership of CoE, becouse it is paritialy on the european continent. But anyway currently it is very far from meeting democratic/human rights criteria, so it will not get even special guest/candidate status" Alinor 22:01, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Urals thing is a technicality. There's no way Kazakhstan is in Europe. I would not agree to the UK being included in category: South America just because it has control of the Falklands/Malvinas. Turkey plays in the European Championship, dude, has a long history of involvement in European history (not least of which is that it is the site of the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, very much a European invention), and is a candidate nation for the European Union.Dr Zen 11:29, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Istanbul is a European city in its origin, but it is currently posessed by the Asian country. It is nonsence to equalize Byzantine Empire and Turkey, put invaders and defenders on the one hand.--Nixer 17:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a brilliant suggestion, if I do say so myself, about how to resolve this dispute. Since the definition of the eastern border of Europe is basically an invention, replace it with another definition that is much clearer, viz.: Between the Black Sea and the Arctic Ocean, the border separating Europe and Asia shall be the line of longitude at 40 degrees east. At a single stroke, this will make it clear that Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Kazakhstan are geographically in Asia, ending the dispute there. (We can still consider them "culturally" as part of Europe, just as Cyprus is considered, even though it is indisputably in Asia.) Forty east slices only a tiny, tiny bit of Ukraine off to Asia, leaving the rest in Europe. What does it matter to Russia where exactly on the vast steppes the border of Europe and Asia is, especially considering that Moscow will remain in Europe? Teemu Leisti 23:41, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • It's certainly imaginative, but Wikipedia needs to represent general consensus on these matters - it's not the place to present brilliant new theories unknown to the outside world. Warofdreams 11:32, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I meant it mostly as a joke. Should have added a smiley, I guess. Teemu Leisti 15:03, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

comment to Pidgeot: The template is not exlusionatory. Kazakhstan, like Russia, Turkey, etc. can stay both in Asia and in Europe templates. Do you think that Turkey or Russia should be removed, becouse the majority of their territory is in Asia? Alinor 08:20, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This poll is absolutely ridiculous. If we agreed on Turkey and Russia, Kazakhstan should be in too. The border between Europe and Asia is clear and it's also perfectly clear that a large part of Kazakhstan lies in Europe. Kazakhstan is also a member of some European organisations, for example UEFA. In European Championship's Qualifiers Kazakhstan national football team plays in the same group as Ukraine, Greece, Denmark which are obviously European countries. I find denying that Kazakhstan is an european nation to be absolutely disrespectful to the people of Kazakhstan.  Grue  10:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What is disrespectful about calling a country an "Asian nation"? Nolens volens you are implying that Europe is somehow superior to Asia. Gugganij 29 June 2005 15:14 (UTC)
I assume it would be disrespectful in the same way that calling a black person "not really black" would be disrespectful. There's nothing inherantly wrong with not being black, but to deny someone's background is disrespectful. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 14:45, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Why not just delete Europe, it's Eurasia anyways. 132.205.94.174 22:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • It seems obvious that a country can exist in more than one continent. It seems equally obvious that a country can be in more than one continent's infobox. The Canary Islands are a part of Africa, and they're also a part of Spain, but that doesn't mean Spain isn't European, just because part of Spain isn't. Parts of France are in North and South America as well as Asia.
  • Also, claims that "Kazakhstan is not culturally a part of Europe" or "Kazakhstan did not affect the history of Europe" belie an unstated bias; Kazakhstan is, afterall, culturally a part of the section of Europe it's in, and Kazakhstan did effect the history of the part of Europe within its borders. These sorts of claims reveal a conception of Europe that is not the same as the continent itself. I think the infobox is about the continent, and not about someone's idea of Europe (which may not include that part of the continent.) – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 14:45, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Adendum: The question, I think, is this: Should this infobox include all countries that are, at least partly, within the geographical borders of Europe, or should this infobox include all countries that are thought of as being European? If we go with the latter, we have constant problems: thought of by who? European defined how? But with the former, it's very simple. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 15:33, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
      • IMHO this box should be as inclusive as possible, to include all countries (both sovereign and non-sovereign States) that are partially lying in Europe, and thought to be European by substantial number of people. If it is really that necessary, add a disclaimer saying that it is not an endorsement of anybody's point of view to have included certain countries, as the box is for navigation purposes. It is the business of each of the country articles to decide if this box should be included or not. — Instantnood 15:41, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Armenia

Votes: 93
Support: 60%

Include in list.
Note: Armenia is geographically in Asia, but is a member of the Council of Europe


Support

  1. pure inuyasha it has territory in europe so therefore it in in europe.
  2. Zoney 09:10, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 02:56, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
  4. Nikola 03:55, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
  5. blankfaze | •• 16:14, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  6. Kasperl 18:31, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  7. Dmn 07:01, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  8. Europa 03:40, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC) - How can one be so ignorant of culture and history to exclude this ancient european nation from the definition of europe, while including Turkey?
  9. Aramgutang 14:43, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC) - I agree with the above.
  10. Joao Campos 18:30, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) - I agree with Europa.
  11. Alinor - Cyprus is included (geographicaly it is purely Asian), so Armenia should be included too
  12. Bogdan | Talk 10:58, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC) - the language and culture is European.
  13. Comrade Tassadar 09:04, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  14. Ejrrjs 18:28, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) Culturally European.
  15. J.K. [[]] 08:54, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC) Seems odd to include Azerbaijan and Turkey in Europe but not Armenia.
  16. Andre (talk) 00:31, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
  17. Bart133 (t) 00:12, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) Why Azerbaijan and Turkey but not Armenia?
  18. Nightstallion 12:31, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  19. Beta m (talk) 18:35, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
  20. Wild ride 04:31, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  21. Micga 00:47, 04 mar 2005 (CET) - it would be really unfair to have only Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkay included without Armenia
  22. --Monkbel 11:07, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  23. --Tabib 15:09, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC) - Armenia, along with Azerbaijan and Georgia should be included in the list.
  24. Jacoplane 03:46, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  25. Instantnood 09:06, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  26. --THOTH 17:43, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) I'm actually against Georgia, Armenia, Adjerbaijan and Khazakstan being considered as being in Europe - but if the latter two are then I will vote for the former - my vote switches if the latter two are no longer considered European. I'm also generally against Turkey being considered European.
  27. Joolz 18:20, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  28. Hedley 15:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  29. Moosh88 Do any of the people who voted for Azerbaijan to be included in the European template know any history?So some uneducated people supported Azerbaijan being on the Europe template, O.K.? Now take out a map and look at Armenia and Georgia. Both countries are closer to Europe than Azerbaijan. Please someone explain how Azerbaijan is in Europe but the other two Caucasian nations are not. On top of that Armenians are an Indo-European people, whereas Azeri's and Georgians are not. Armenia's culture is more so tuned to that of other European nations than Azerbajians which is a lot closer to Central Asian culture. On a further note both Armenia and Georgia have better political relations with Europe. If the community wishes to be ignorant that's fine with me. I know the truth, and unfortunately a side effect of letting anyone edit Wiki is that people with very little knowledge or with a bias post incorrect information. I hope that the majority of the members on Wiki are more educated than what this debate is showing. If anyone would like me further to support the Armenian and Georgian cause with more information please contact me.
  30. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions
  31. -- Stereotek 14:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  32. Maartenvdbent 11:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  33.  Grue  10:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  34. Why have footnotes 1 & 2 if we're not prepared to use them?
  35. Theathenae 29 June 2005 13:26 (UTC) Most definitely, especially if Turkey and Azerbaijan are included.
  36. SouthernComfort 3 July 2005 05:20 (UTC)
  37. Valentinian 14:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC) Include, use the footnote used for Cyprus. I consider both Georgia and Armenia to be more European than Azerbaijan, so it makes little sense to exclude Georgia and Armenia while including Azerbaijan.
  38. Lapsed Pacifist 16:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  39. KissL 15:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC) Armenia belongs to Europe in terms of its culture.
  40. As with Georgia, above. Septentrionalis 17:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  41. -- Elisson • Talk 17:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  42. WikiFan04Talk 2:27, 19 Jul 2005 (CDT)
  43. Use footnote 2. Tomer TALK 18:43, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  44. Eupator 22:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC) - Armenia has always been a European state. The fact that there is even a poll concerning this is ridiculous and the inclusion of Azerbaijan, Turkey and Kazakhstan is just hilarious. To be European is a pre-requisite to be Armenian.
  45. Of course it belongs in this template (and in the Asia one too of course). But furthermore, these polls have clearly failed. Firstly, it is illogical not to discuss the caucasus region as a whole (this doesn't mean that they have to stand or fall together; but if they're split up, it should be with a coherent rationale — not just the vagaries of separate elections); and secondly, the voting mechanism is laughable — either there's a quick and unfairly sacrosanct resolution or there's eternal and mathematically unbreakable stalemate. We should start again from scratch; please see my suggestion at the bottom of the page. Doops | talk 17:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  46. Azerbaijan is considered Europe and Armenia isn't? Then please check any map and get your eyeglasses fixed. Tommmmmmy 21:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  47. Caerwine 03:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC) I'd be neutral except that Azerbaijan already made it as part of Europe.
  48. G 03:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC) Funny how everyone talks about Turkey's rich "European History"! More like invading and pillaging our great nations for 500 years, they got further than the arabs. Half of Turkey should be Armenia, yet you call Turkey European and Armenia not! I am disgusted!
  49. Serouj 11:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC) The Armenian Alphabet is one of 6 European Alphabets identified in the Unicode Standard. The other 5 European Alphabets are: Coptic, Cyrillic, Georgian, Greek, and Latin. Therefore, I think Armenia is a part of Europe, and by the same merits, so is Armenia's neighbor, Georgia. Please see Unicode Code Charts and look under the European Languages category. Also, Chapter 7, European Alphabetic Scripts, of the Unicode Standard version 4.0.0 covers European Languages in more detail. Cheers everyone, and Happy Holidays!
  50. If there is a widespread opinion that Armenia is a European country, it should be included in the template. Arguments to the contrary belong in that's country's article. --Bjarki 13:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  51. Telex 11:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  52.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 16:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  53. This is all wrong, but it would be absurd to put Georgia and Azerbaijan and not Armenia--Aldux 17:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  54. Hectorian 03:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  55. —Khoikhoi 03:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  56. Clevelander 23:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC) -- Not only is Armenia culturally close to Europe but several maps show it as part of Europe: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]

Oppose

  1. Cantus - Let's stick with geographical definitions.
  2. James F. (talk) 09:32, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
  3. Rmhermen 16:57, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
  4. Pædia - Agree with Cantus on this.
  5. Warofdreams 18:42, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC) - Agree with Cantus
  6. Moravice 23:50, 1 June 2004 (UTC)
  7. Gdabski 14:05, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  8. "DICK" CHENEY 01:53, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  9. Shallot - Exclude, except with a very fat disclaimer.
  10. john k 06:05, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC) Not in Europe at all.
  11. Dittaeva 18:54, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  12. Merovingian✍Talk 01:00, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
  13. Matthewmayer 10:58, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  14. webkid 13:12, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  15. older≠wiser 13:25, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  16. Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 18:42, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  17. PedanticallySpeaking 15:31, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
  18. Dr Zen 11:34, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  19. Blacklite 04:00, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  20. Malyctenar 10:54, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) As above.
  21. Chris 73 Talk 12:06, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  22. Teemu Leisti 22:40, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  23. --Gramaic 19:38, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  24. *drew 04:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  25. Caligvla 18:42, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) - Agree with Cantus, As a European I find it offensive to call these Middle Eastern people Europeans!! They are Culturally devoid of any European idenity
    User has only three contributions, two of which are to this page. Also he/she appears to be speaking rubbish. Dmn / Դմն 29 June 2005 11:56 (UTC)
  26. Gugganij 12:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  27. David.Monniaux 17:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  28. Mbisanz 00:02, 21 July 2005 (EST)
  29. It's not actually in Europe. See comments. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 15:05, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  30. Huaiwei 21:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC) As a geographer, I oppose. I understand the fluid nature of continental definitions, and yes, geographers cant agree either (a cultural geographer would prob protest), but you have to stop somewhere or else it becomes a mockery. Australia, Canada, New Zeland, and the USA next?
  31. --Mehrdad 13:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC) The EU is trying to broaden it's territories in Asia. The CIS countries have been Asians for thousands of years and will always be. Can Europeans change their culture too? This is EU Conspiracy.
  32. --John72 05:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC) This should be decided by people of Armenia, not us. Georgia, Azerbaijan and ... have the right to vote in a free election.
  33. --Sherwoodfr 05:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC) We all know this is for land, oil, gas & ...", no one in Europe knows anything or cares about Armenians or other countries which separated from former Russian empire. These countries are called "Central Asian Countries" and have nothing in common with Europeans.
    • Armenia is not one of the Central Asian countries. — Instantnood 07:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  34. Minotaur 05:42, 17 November 2005 (CET) Who said europeans have to have christian populations. Armenia has no part on Europe and they shall be considered as asians. IF NOT, it would be "unfair" to Lebanon, Syria or South Korea, because they also have a large christian populations.
  35. --tasc 21:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC) What? Is a shame to be in Asia?
  36. --Focoe 20:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC) Christian doesnt equal European
  37. --Deepblue06 Are you kidding me? Get real please. I'm sure China is European too. In fairness, I don't believe Azerbajian and Georgia should be included either.
  38. Oppose. Note that the internal name of the republic is Hayastan, not Armenia. But also much stronger oppose inclusion of Georgia and especially Azerbaijan either.--Nixer 21:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

An Armenian would call themself a European. It is a huge insult to Armenians to call Turkey and Azerbaijan "European" when by blood and location they are not. It's also ironic that formerly Armenian territory is now part of both Turkey and Azerbaijan and you can them european. Personally, I'm disgusted in everyone that voted "oppose" for their short-sightedness on the issue. - G 10:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

As with Cyprus, I think that if the country is a member of a major European group, then you have to include it. blankfaze | •• 16:14, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Europe should be a page on the continent and not membership states in all organisations with Europe in its name. Armenia comes closer than Cyprus however. Moravice

I'd say Cyprus comes much closer. As far as European organizations go, the EU is far more important than the Council of Europe. john k 06:05, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Moravice probably implies that Armenia is closer to the Caucusus, than Cyprus is to Greece. Pædia 15:11, 2004 Jun 17 (UTC)

It would be look very odd to have Georgia and Azerbaijan without Armenia too.Dmn 07:09, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Maybe, but #Whitaker's Almanack 2004, World Book, and CIA - The World Factbook disagree. Pædia 15:11, 2004 Jun 17 (UTC)
Compared to Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan Armenia's culture and history are much more European. My votes reflect the importance I place on culture Dmn 19:49, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Not exactly correct. Armenia's culture has more in common with European culture than with the Islamic culture area that surrounds it on most sides, but that is because of European culture values the same things as Armenian culture. That said, however, because of its location on the fringe of Asia, near Europe, with more historical and cultural affinities to Turkey and Greece than to Iraq and Iran, it is often considered "European". Turkey, in the same way, is considered "European" because of the prominent historical role previous incarnations of Anatolian governments have played in the history of Europe, eventhough Anatolia is clearly in Asia. Tomer TALK 18:43, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Australia has a far more European culture than any of those three. Perhaps we should include it in Europe?Dr Zen 11:34, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If anybody looks up Armenia in the dictionary, the definition would be; an ancient country in West Asia that's now divided between Armenia, Turkey, and Iran. That definition of Armenia in the dictionary proves to everyone, that Armenia is not in Europe.--Gramaic 19:42, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Moosh Asks "Why Azerbaijan?" Answer: A small part of northern Azerbaijan lies north of the Caucasus, hence part of the country is "in Europe" Tomer TALK 18:43, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • This is sort of the inverse of Kazakhstan, above. Armenia isn't geographically in Europe, but people are saying it is "culturally European". In actual fact, Armenia's culture is a part of the culture of Asia, since it's in Asia, and shows that parts of Asia are Westernized. Again, the infobox should show what countries are actually in Europe, and not what countries fit into someone's notion of what European Culture is. To take this a step further, the U.S. is (in many ways) culturally European - and to the extent it's not, England isn't either. Parts of the U.S. (such as "Little Italy") are more culturally European than, say, a U.S. Navy base in Germany. The U.S. has had a great effect of the history of Europe (in the last hundred years, anyway), and is a member of NATO, a largely European organization. But the U.S. is not in Europe - not even Little Italy is in Europe. And neither is Armenia, however aligned it may be with Europe. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 15:09, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Quadell, only when Cyprus and the British Isles are off the list. We have already established that the Eastern border of Europe is subjective. There is no barrier like an Ocean. It's one continent Eurasia, the divisions are man made! Race and culture are the only way to separate Eurasia. Armenia is not "Westernized", more like the "West" is Armenianized.--Eupator 17:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I personally don't believe Cyprus belongs on the list. England is an island of Europe, just as Japan is a part of Asia. Race and culture are poor ways to separate continents; otherwise Australia and the U.S. are in Europe. Even an arbitrary geography is better than that. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 17:15, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Fine, but not in the case of Eurasia. Eurasia is the continent. Anyone can divide Eurasia to Asia and Europe anyway he/she wants. Australia and US are not part of Eurasia, poor analogy. Like I said there is no clear and visible geographic barrier that divides Europe and Asia. You cannot escape culture and race when using arbitrary geography because it all comes down to who will support which definition and we go back to race and culture.--Eupator 19:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

As I do not know if I have the right to vote here in en.wikipedia, I give only a comment: In my opinion the Kuma-Manych Depression and not the Kaukasus is the geographic boundary of Europe. So, neither Armenia, nor Georgia or Azerbaijan would be part of Europe. I am not sure about Kazakhstan, but the small part of this country situated west of the Ural river seems to be insignificant, compared to the European part of Russia or Turkey (Istanbul!). This area is thinly populated, the biggest settlements are Oral and Atyrau - the center of the later is on the east bank of Ural river. --Franz Xaver 15:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Why do you think that you don't have the right to vote here? Obviously you are a registered user, therefore if you want to vote you can do so. Gugganij 12:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Kazakhstan's european territory is bigger than the whole United Kingdom and also much bigger than the turkish european territory (both as actual square kilometers and as percentage of the whole country. See Transcontinental nation#Countries in both Asia and Europe) 212.36.8.100 13:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
The map you refer to is full of mistakes. Where is the Ural river and where is the Caucasus watershed? It should be deleted. --Franz Xaver 21:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
So I was snooping around wikipedia when I stumbled along this little poll here. I was quite surprised to see that only 59% of voters support Armenia as part of Europe. Not only that but I was disgusted with smartass remarks by people who think they know the Armenian culture but really, they know nothing. For those who opposed Armenia as being part of Europe based on it's location, I understand. But for those who stated that Armenia's culure resembles that of Middle East should feel disgraceful. Armenia is a Christian country! The middle east is majorly muslim. I know I'll get responses like "your religion has nothing to do with your culture." As a matter of fact, it has everything to do with your culture. Why do you think France, Germany, Italy is Christian, and not Muslim, or Hindu, or any other religion? It's because they are culturally and traditionally alike, that's why. Armenia is a European country, and don't judge its traditions ignorantly based on its location.--Boonierat 23 January, 2006 (UTC)
Since when does "Christian" equal "European". Roman catholic Phillipines is a European country ? Maybe we should build walls around Albania, Bosnia, Kosovo, Southern Bulgaria, European Turkey and the muslim parts of European Russia(Kabardino-Balkaria, Tatarstan etc) so that they dont disturb the christian nature of Europe ? --Focoe 20:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
This issue should not be closed until the factual truth is restored, Armenia is NOT in Europe--Calgvla 08:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I think it should be closed. This poll has been open since May 2004 and 60% of the Wikipedians who participated agree that Armenia should be included. -- Clevelander 23:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Flag

Votes: 46
Support: 39.1%

Use the European flag (flag of the Council of Europe and European Union).

Support

  1. Zoney 09:10, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 09:32, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
  3. blankfaze | •­• 16:26, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  4. Warofdreams 18:42, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  5. ✏ Sverdrup 10:56, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  6. Andreas Gaufer
  7. Europa 03:47, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  8. Trilobite (Talk) 17:14, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  9. Andre (talk) 00:31, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
  10. Blacklite 04:02, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  11. Nightstallion 12:33, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  12. Wild ride 04:31, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  13. --Monkbel 11:07, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  14. Parmaestro 20:39, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  15. --Tabib 13:32, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC) - This is a European flag in wider sense, not simply flag of EU or CoE.~
  16. Jacoplane 03:46, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  17. Septentrionalis 17:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  18. Gugganij 12:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Cantus
  2. Nikola 03:55, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
  3. Pædia - Please see comment.
  4. Moravice 23:50, 1 June 2004 (UTC)
  5. Arnejohs 10:50, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  6. "DICK" CHENEY 01:53, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  7. Shallot - Not really necessary.
  8. Dmn 07:05, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  9. Merovingian✍Talk 01:06, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
  10. Aris Katsaris 02:51, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  11. Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 18:49, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  12. Alinor - becouse not all european countries are assosiated with this flag (even in its widest formulation - Belarus, Vatican City and Kazakhstan are still not members of CoE)
  13. Comrade Tassadar 09:07, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  14. CheeseDreams - it only represents 15 countries, many citizens of which object to the flags existance, and it does not represent the majority of countries in europe in any way whatsoever.
    • Which 15 do you mean? There are 25 countries in the EU, and in any case it was not the EU that invented the flag, nor does it refer solely to the EU. You need to read European flag.
  15. Malyctenar 10:54, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) Used generally as EU flag, would be confusing.
  16. Chris 73 Talk 12:10, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC) - none of the other Template:Africa or template:Asia have a flag. But maybe, a map can be included.
  17. Teemu Leisti 22:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  18. Oppose 80.255 18:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  19. EnSamulili --EnSamulili 23:39, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  20. The European Councill is not sufficiently known or important. /Tuomas 07:27, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  21. Instantnood - a map of Europe should be used instead. 09:06, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  22. *drew 04:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) - Use European map instead.
  23. Joolz 18:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) - Would cause unneccessary confusion.
  24. Valentinian 14:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC) A map of Europe is a much better idea.
  25. KissL 16:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  26. WikiFan04Talk 12:52, 18 Jul 2005 (CDT)
  27. No maps and no symbols please, the continent templates should be consistent. --Bjarki 13:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  28.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 17:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC). Not all countries of Europe are in EU. Also, EU is aiming to stretch outside of Europe. Keep the flag at the EU countries template only.

Comments

Not all Europe uses this flag, i.e. Belarus, the Holy See, Kazakhstan, and Monaco. Pædia 06:53, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

It's not just the flag of the European Union, I edited the description above accordingly. "All" countries are part of the (European Council read:) Council of Europe). -- User:Docu

It was designed as a flag for Europe - hence it is the European flag and should be used for Europe! Zoney 22:17, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Couldn't we use a small image of the continent? Nikola 23:01, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Why this consistent desire of relating a flag to a continent? If this article is about 'The continent Europe', the first issue to look into should rather be: What is a continent? To me it seems to be some confusion here. The European Council, The European Union, The European Football Association, etc. is all fine, - but it does not place any labels on the continent as such. It is the other way around.--Arnejohs 06:25, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I think Docu wanted to say Council of Europe. The Council of Europe has agreed on some European Symbols. Some European countries are not member of the Council of Europe, though. --213.47.57.154 23:15, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Yes, you are right. Thanks for correcting this, making my point even clearer. --Arnejohs 08:15, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Indeed, thank you for pointing this out. I edited my note above. -- User:Docu

Interestingly, the Council of Europe states:

The European emblem may be used only if:
- there is no likelihood of the user of the emblem being confused with the European Community or the Council of Europe;
- the emblem is not used in connection with objectives or activities which are incompatible with the aims and principles of the European Community or of the Council of Europe.

Our case may fail one or both of these reasons. Pædia 13:58, 2004 Jun 11 (UTC)

Since this poll is undetermined quite a while, let me add some commentary on why I feel the flag shouldn't be used, in hopes of changing people's votes. It was created by the Council of Europe, used by the EU. Though on my part I am as much a European federalist as can be and in favour of further European integration, I nonetheless do *not* accept that the Council of Europe has authority over the whole of the continent, to decide "emblems" for it that must be accepted per force by others. Neither does the EU have authority over the whole of the continent, the same way that the Arab League doesn't have authority over all Arab-speaking states and the African Union doesn't have authority over all African states. Europe existed as a term long before either the CE or the EU existed. Even though the Council decided a symbol to signify the continent, Wikipedia has no reason to back that choice of the Council, especially when *not* all countries of said continent are part of that organization and especially when the dilemma could be avoided by simple non-inclusion of the flag. I see a question of POV here: It'd be as if Wikipedia was claiming that the Council of Europe has legitimacy even over non-members. Which it doesn't. Aris Katsaris 13:37, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm very surprised that there is any controversy on this subject. It's clearly a symbol that represents Europe since the Council of Europe has made it one and the Council of Europe includes virtually every single European state. No one here has shown any reason to believe that there is any opposition to this symbol by the three possible European states that are not members of the Council of Europe (Vatican City, Belarus and Kazakhstan). The Vatican even mints its own Euro coins ! Even if there were opposition, the flag can be included with a note mentioning which states object to its use. That is the proper role of an encyclopedia. It is in no way endorsing any political viewpoint but merely stating what is an obvious fact. Parmaestro 20:39, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Even if all countries of the world participated in the Council of Europe, I'm not sure I'd agree to the usage of the flag. Almost every country in the world participates in the United Nations, but I'd still prefer it if we kept the concept of organizations separate from other concepts like continents and geography. What if the Council disbanded or members left? We don't have the flag of the African Union in Template:Africa. Aris Katsaris 09:17, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
I was almost persuaded by this argument and had contemplated changing my vote. After checking the websites for the Council of Europe and the African Union, I was able to reconfirm my orginal position. The Council of Europe adopted this flag not only for its organization but specifically for the purpose of providing Europe with a symbol with which Europeans can identify. The fact that the European Union has adopted this flag as well is a testament to the fact that this is not just a flag of an organization. This is in contrast to the flag of the African Union which does not make any claim that the flag represents anything other than its own organization. It also states that the flag sybmolizes the hopes and aspirations for African unity. It seems to me that as an encyclopedia, we have an obligation to look beyond our own personal beliefs and opinions about whether or not Europe should have a flag, emblem or symbol and simply decide if the flag is used or recognized as a symbol for Europe. It would seem hard to deny this fact on an empirical basis. Parmaestro 11:37, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Regardless of the CoE's original intentions, the flag is not generally used or recognized as a symbol for Europe. It's generally used and recognized as a symbol of the European Union. Aris Katsaris 17:38, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
I notice in the United States article that under official languages, English is listed as a de facto official language. Would you also be in favor of removing references to English there since English is in no way an offical language and legally does not enjoy a status different from other languages? Parmaestro 11:37, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Only if you could convince me of the fact that English is "in no way an official language", which I doubt you could. In what language is the US Constitution written, and in which language are the US laws passed by the US Congress? Aris Katsaris 17:38, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
The proposal to declare English the official language of the United States has been repeatedly made, and repeatedly defeated.... Septentrionalis 17:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

CLOSED POLLS

Russia & Turkey

Votes: 16
Support: 100%

Include in list.
Note: A sizeble portion of Russia is in Europe (territory west of the Ural Mountains), while the rest is in Asia. European Turkey comprises territory to the west and north of the Bosporus and the Dardanelles; the rest is part of Asia.

Support

  1. Cantus - Both have well known territories in Europe.
  2. Zoney 09:10, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 09:32, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
  4. Rmhermen 16:57, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
  5. SimonP 02:56, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
  6. Nikola 03:55, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
  7. Pædia
  8. MartinBiely 23:08, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
  9. Matthewmayer 10:58, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  10. blankfaze | •­• 16:00, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  11. Warofdreams 18:42, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  12. Moravice 23:50, 1 June 2004 (UTC)
  13. Hokanomono - Europe and Asia
  14. Gdabski - both Europe and Asia
  15. ✏ Sverdrup 13:45, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  16. Cbguder 15:19, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Your signature

Comments

While I see this vote is closed, I want to state a comment. You should note the main difference: Russia is in an ethnical, linguistical, historical and cultural sense an european country, whereas Turkey only in a geographical sense (3% of Turkish territory lie in Europe). -- Europa 20:29, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that combining Russia and Turkey in one poll is a little trick.--Nixer 22:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Azerbaijan

Votes: 15
Support: 80%

Include in list.
Note: According to Whitaker's Almanack 2004 (page 2), World Book, and CIA - The World Factbook, but not Britannica, Azerbaijan lies partially in Europe, with the majority of the territory in Asia. It is a member of the Council of Europe.

Support

  1. Zoney 09:10, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
  2. SimonP 02:56, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
  3. Nikola 03:55, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
  4. Pædia
  5. Matthewmayer 10:58, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  6. Warofdreams 18:42, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  7. Moravice 23:50, 1 June 2004 (UTC)
  8. blankfaze | •­• 23:38, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)] (changed vote)
  9. Cantus - I changed my vote. There are two possible definitions of the European/Asian boundary. Both should be taken into account.
  10. Shallot - Include, with some footnote.
  11. James F. (talk) 09:32, 30 May 2004 (UTC) (vote changed: James F. (talk) 04:42, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC))
  12. Alinor 18:10, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) (added after vote closed, so that the 15votes rule is followed; see history from April,2th,2005 - [20] and discussion)

Oppose

  1. Rmhermen 16:57, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
  2. Gdabski 13:54, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  3. "DICK" CHENEY 01:53, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  4. Moosh88 26 May 2005 (added after vote was REALLY closed - 15votes & >=70%)
  5. Dmn / Դմն 29 June 2005 11:53 (UTC) (Added after vote was REALLY closed - 15votes & >=70%)

Comments

While I see this vote is closed, I will register my protest at the inclusion of Azerbaijan, which is located pretty much wholly in Asia, depending on how one draws the borderline. john k 06:08, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

While I see this vote is closed, I want to state that Azerbaijan is as much European as Turkey, no more, no less. -- Europa 20:20, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I wish to register my protest at the inclusion of Azerbaijan without the inclusion of both Armenia and Georgia. This looks wrong. Dmn 10:50, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely right, its a shame to include Azerbaijan, while excluding the ancient european countries Armenia and Georgia. -- Europa 20:23, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Maybe, but #Whitaker's Almanack 2004, World Book, and CIA - The World Factbook disagree. Pædia 15:11, 2004 Jun 17 (UTC)

Pity this is closed. There's no way Azerbaijan is in Europe! It has almost no part in European history -- none at all if it weren't for the Romans. Yes, these places do pass the European sports test but culturally they just do not feel European. Turkey has had long involvement in the affairs of Europe. Even it is rather borderline for inclusion. But Azerbaijan? Jeez.Dr Zen 11:44, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm 100% in agreement with Dr. Zen (for once :-) here. Noel (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I am also against including Azerbaijan in Template:Europe. Gugganij 13:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

If Azerbaijan is included then it's only right and proper for Armenia and Georgia to also be included. Moosh88

A pity this vote is closed. Azerbaijan is not European. However, if Azerbaijan is included, it makes no sense not including Georgia and Armenia. Valentinian 14:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

There are nine protesting comments above (compared to 17 who voted), and seven of them would be oppose votes, which would bring the vote ratio to way below 70%. I say we reopen this poll. Any objections? --Joy [shallot] 22:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

  • No objection, but Cyprus (with a lower pass percentage and few keep votes) should also be reopened. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 17:20, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support a reopening of this poll (and a few others). I too oppose this inclusion, as well as all other countries in the Caucasus area (we might even consider having a vote for all three as a bloc, so we dont end up having one entry in a continent and the others in another!). Since the desolution of the Soviet Union, all three have been classified by most authoritative texts as Asian. Yes, I recognise the cultural links and so forth, but isnt this true for all borderline states? Lets stick to either a purely political, geographical, or cultural definition of continents or else a sensible result may not materialise.--Huaiwei 21:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support reopening. Azerbaijan is an Asian country in spheres of influence of Persia and Arabs throughout its history.--Nixer 22:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Svalbard

Votes: 12
Support: 100%

List as a dependency.
Note: Listed as a dependency at CIA - The World Factbook.

Support

  1. Rmhermen 16:57, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
  2. Pædia
  3. Matthewmayer 10:58, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  4. blankfaze | •­• 16:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  5. Warofdreams 18:42, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  6. Moravice 23:50, 1 June 2004 (UTC)
  7. Cantus
  8. James F. (talk) 07:29, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  9. "DICK" CHENEY 01:53, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  10. Shallot - Include, probably with a note about the Arctic.
  11. Merovingian✍Talk 01:05, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
  12. Alinor (added after vote closed, so that 15vote rule is followed)

Oppose

  1. Your signature

Comments

This sounds Scandinavian - is it? If so, why is it being polled on? Zoney 09:10, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Lies north of Norway. Its status seems pretty uncontroversial, but it was repeatedly removed from the WikiBox. Warofdreams 18:42, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Svalbard is since the 1920s a part of the Kingdom of Norway and can therefore not be regarded as a dependency. (CIA is far from the best source in this world!) See point 4.1 above. Jakro64 11:15, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please see #Svalbard and Jan Mayen. Pædia 06:16, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

Cyprus

Votes: 23
Support: 70%

Include in list.
Note: Cyprus is geographically in Asia, but is a member of the European Union and the Council of Europe.

Support

  1. Zoney 09:10, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 09:32, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
  3. Rmhermen 16:57, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
  4. Nikola 03:55, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
  5. Matthewmayer 10:58, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  6. blankfaze | •­• 16:04, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  7. GeneralPatton 13:50, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC) It is Europe. Both Culturally, historically, economically and politically.
  8. ✏ Sverdrup 10:54, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  9. "DICK" CHENEY 01:53, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC) Cyprus is a member of the Socialist Empire.
  10. Shallot - Include, with some footnote.
  11. pir 04:15, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  12. john k 06:03, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC) with footnote. It's a member of the EU.
  13. Dmn 07:03, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  14. Profoss 09:01, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  15. Merovingian✍Talk 00:55, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
  16. Picapica 12:14, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Cantus - Not geographically a part of Europe.
  2. Pædia - Cyprus is geographically Middle Eastern. Please read Talk:Europe/Archive02#Cyprus is in CoE and EU not Europe.
  3. Warofdreams 18:42, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  4. Moravice 23:50, 1 June 2004 (UTC)
  5. Hokanomono - Though, I'd say "western Asia" rather than "Middle East", or "Near East" as people say here.
  6. Gdabski 13:57, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)^
  7. Dittaeva 18:45, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Comments

If it's part of the EU, how can you not include it? blankfaze | •­• 16:04, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Being part of the EU does not of itself make it a part of Europe. Is French Guyana part of Europe because it is in the EU, or was Greenland part of Europe until it left the EU? Warofdreams 18:42, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Good point by Warofdreams. I espescially find the twist with Greenland very convincing. Moravice
I have to disagree with Warofdreams. Membership in the EU is available exclusively to European states. Hence, any state in the European Union must be in Europe. Greenland and French Guyana were/are in the European Union because they belonged to a European state and can not be members in their own right. A very different case from Cyprus. Parmaestro 20:12, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • ad Hokanomono:
    Perhaps. We agree that Middle East (or Near East) is in SW Asia and NE Africa, but never Europe. Pædia 16:03, 2004 Jun 17 (UTC)
    Who's "we" here? The "Near East" was frequently used to include the Balkans. john k 16:55, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    "We" is Pædia and all who agree with the definition(s). When did "Near East" refer to the Balkans? Pædia 05:42, 2004 Jun 18 (UTC)
    (And i just thought that "we" means Pædia and me...) See the article Middle East and especially the two paragraphs about the history of the notion in Britain and in other European countries and maybe Talk:Middle East#European use of the Term and Talk:Southwest Asia#Less ambiguous?. The term Near East is so much relative to the position that you really can see a difference in semantics between France and Germany. It's exciting. --Hokanomono 18:55, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)
    Thanks. According to Merriam-Webster Online, a former usage of "Near East" was "the Ottoman Empire at its greatest extent" (including the Balkans). Pædia 19:53, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)

Does anyone know why Cyprus and Malta are members of both the Non-Aligned Movement and the European Union? Pædia 16:51, 2004 Jun 17 (UTC)

Because they joined both organisations. What's your question?
Cyprus and Malta are just two of six EU-members that are not member of the NATO. --Hokanomono 08:50, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)
  • I object to this vote being closed. It passed with 70% of 23 total votes cast - far fewer than other polls on this page. Just one additional "no" vote (and I would have voted no) would have caused it to fail, and many other polls are listed as open without a closing date. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 15:37, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Azores

Votes: 12
Support: 0%

List as a dependency.
Note: World Book lists Azores as a dependency of Europe. Not listed as a dependency at CIA - The World Factbook.

Support

  1. Your signature

Oppose

  1. Pædia
  2. Zoney 22:08, 31 May 2004 (UTC) It's like listing Wales as a dependancy of the UK! Azores is (a simply geographically seperated) part of Portugal.
  3. blankfaze | •­• 16:19, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  4. Warofdreams 18:42, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC) - does not appear to be a dependency.
  5. Cantus 00:20, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC) - Integral part of Portugal.
  6. James F. (talk) 07:29, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  7. "DICK" CHENEY 01:53, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  8. Shallot - Exclude, except with a fat disclaimer about the Atlantic.
  9. john k 06:06, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC) If it's an integral part of Portugal, it should not be listed.
  10. Merovingian✍Talk 01:02, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Hokanomono 22:11, 2004 Jul 5 (UTC)
  12. Alinor (added after vote closed, so that 15vote rule is followed)

Comments

Can the World Book listings be verified? Pædia 20:22, 2004 Jun 3 (UTC)

Added to World Book link. --Cantus 23:43, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Åland

Votes: 15
Support: 27%

List as a dependency.
Note: Not listed as a dependency at CIA - The World Factbook. See also: #Dependencies.

Support

  1. James F. (talk) 09:32, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
  2. Rmhermen 16:57, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
  3. "DICK" CHENEY 01:53, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  4. Merovingian✍Talk 01:02, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Pædia
  2. Zoney 22:13, 31 May 2004 (UTC) Moved vote. This is not a dependency.
  3. Matthewmayer 10:58, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  4. Cantus
  5. ✏ Sverdrup 10:41, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  6. Shallot - Don't list at all, not notable.
  7. john k 06:06, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC) As far as I am aware, this is not a dependency, but an autonomous region of Finland.
  8. Dmn 07:03, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  9. Hokanomono 22:08, 2004 Jul 5 (UTC)
  10. older≠wiser 13:26, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  11. Aris Katsaris 04:48, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC) - Let's end this. Poll hereby closed.

Comments

Why is this even being voted on? It's a European semi-autonomous region between Finland / Sweden. Zoney 09:10, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it has not been autonomousguaranteed autonomy since 1951. Please read #Dependencies. Pædia 06:53, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
Ummm... the writers of Åland appear to disagree :o) I'd previously read about it elsewhere on WP as enjoying some level of autonomy. Zoney 22:13, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
You might be correct to call it autonomous, but no authoritative resource recognises it as a dependency. Pædia 20:22, 2004 Jun 3 (UTC)

I've removed my vote from support and abstains. Moravice

Jan Mayen

Votes: 12
Support: 100%

List as a dependency.
Note: Listed as a dependency at CIA - The World Factbook.

Support

  1. Rmhermen 16:57, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
  2. Pædia
  3. blankfaze | •­• 16:22, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  4. Warofdreams 18:42, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC) - lies near the European mainland and closely associated with it.
  5. Moravice 23:50, 1 June 2004 (UTC)
  6. Cantus
  7. James F. (talk) 07:29, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  8. Matthewmayer Matthewmayer 09:45, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  9. Shallot - Include, probably with a note about the Arctic.
  10. Merovingian✍Talk 01:04, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Aris Katsaris 04:53, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  12. Alinor(added after vote closed, so that 15vote rule is followed)

Oppose

  1. Your signature

Comments

Where the heck is this place? Zoney 09:10, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

It lies between Norway and Greenland. See the article. Warofdreams 18:42, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Jan Mayen is since 1929 a part of the Kingdom of Norway and can therefore not be regarded as a dependency. (CIA is far from the best source in this world!) See point 4.1 above. Jakro64 11:17, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please see #Svalbard and Jan Mayen. Pædia 06:16, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need to mention an uninhabited island. --Bjarki 13:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Akrotiri and Dhekelia

Votes: 20
Support: 70%

Include in list.
Note: Listed as dependencies at CIA - The World Factbook.

Support

  1. Joao Campos 18:58, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC) - If Cyprus is considerd, then Akrotiri and Dhekelia should.
  2. Jakro64 11:13, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC): Since it is so much chaos on this template why not?, even if Cyprus is far from Europa :-) (When Cyprus is listed, Kazakhstan, Israel, Georgia and Armenia must also be put on the list!)
  3. Alinor - by the description I see that there is even "local population" - the villagers of the Akrotiti village. And this population is governed by CIVIL british administration. The areas are also "souvereign" british. So these are esentialy a dependencies, not purely military bases in another country (Cyprus).
  4. Civil Servant 20 Nov 2004 - I made the edit about Akrotiri village and the civilian administration (I work in the SBAs as a lawyer) - there are also Cypriot villagers from the outskirts of almost all the other villages which border the SBAs, and the large majority of the 99 sq miles is Cypriot owned farmland rather than fenced-off bases. The SBAs are legally an Overseas Territory of the UK (formerly called Dependent Territories), just like any other OT (it is just that the Foreign Office sometimes misses them off lists because they report to the Ministry of Defence). They are not just military bases on someone else's territory. Nobody would suggest that the British Indian Ocean Territories or Ascension Island are not Overseas Territories, even though they have virtually no civilian population (BIOT is the US base of Diego Garcia after the Chagossians were deported, and Ascension is joint USAF/RAF with some BBC and US communications employees). No embassy or normal military base has several thousand people living in it who are not working for it.
  5. Blacklite 04:03, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) should be treated exactly like Cyprus.
  6. Cantus…☎ - Changed my vote now that the CIA World Factbook lists them as dependancies of the UK.
  7. Ejrrjs | What? 10:59, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) Ditto. (Change my vote in the light of new evidence.)
  8. Comrade Tassadar 09:08, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  9. As per Cantus. Andre (talk) 16:01, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Changing my vote as per new information by the CIA World Factbook.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 16:46, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Jonathunder 00:51, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
  12. Chris 73 Talk 12:12, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  13. Nightstallion 12:34, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  14. Ryan! | Talk 20:46, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Moravice Nov 13, 2004 - Cyprus is not in Europe. As it is listed Armenia and others should be to. A clear definition is very much needed. These bases should anyway not be listed as dependencies here, if they are what should we leave out.
  2. Pædia
  3. CheeseDreams As sovereign territories of the crown, they have the same status as the Isle of Man and Jersey.
    Further to a comment posted on my talk page, I strongly reassert my opposition. The CIA world factbook is not an unbiased source is it? CheeseDreams 19:54, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Since when was Cyprus not in Europe? But Ezhiki is right. No bases. Dr Zen 11:37, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  5. Trilobite (Talk) 17:12, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC) No bases
  6. Malyctenar 10:54, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) Too peculiar and obscure to clutter the template. No bloody bases pasaran!

Comments

Ejrrjs 18:16, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC), military occupation, a continent location does not make.

These are military bases, not dependencies per se. They do belong to the UK, but so do a number of British embassies and consulates around the world—you sure would not consider including them all as dependencies?—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 17:22, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Akrotiri and Dhekelia are not part of Cyprus like Guatanamo is part of Cuba. They have a considerable area around them. And consulates and embassies are buildings, not territories.--Joao Campos 13:45, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Still, there must be plenty of other military bases around the world—should all of them that belong to European countries be listed here? I just don't believe that a military base, no matter what its size is, qualifies as a dependency.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 15:03, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Sovereign Base Areas Cyprus states:

The boundaries of the SBAs were drawn to include the major military installations on the ground and to exclude villages and towns.... However, as a result of the coup of 1974 and other developments over the years, about 7,000 Cypriots now live in the SBAs. In addition, approximately 7,800 military and UK-based civilian personnel and their dependants work or live on the Bases.
The SBAs are retained as military bases – not “colonial ” territories. This is the basic philosophy of their administration as stated by HMG in 1960 in the policy declaration usually known as 'Appendix O' . This stated that the policy objectives for the administration of the areas were to be:
a. Effective use of the SBAs as military bases;
b. Full co-operation with the Republic of Cyprus;
c. Protection of the interests of those resident or working in the SBAs.
...
Because the SBAs are primarily required as military bases and not ordinary dependent territories, the Administration reports to the Ministry of Defence in London. It has no formal connection with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or the British High Commission in Nicosia, although there are close informal links with both offices on policy matters.

This 'clarifies' that the SBAs are and are not dependencies? Pædia 06:46, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

I would put it that they are Overseas Territories (dependencies), but not entirely ordinary ones - though I am not sure any of them are 'ordinary' (who would group Pitcairn, Bermuda and BIOT and work out which was the norm?) - that's what makes them so fascinating. But they are definitely not your ordinary military base (take a tourist bus to see ancient ruins in Guantanamo?) - anywhere with 7,000 non-military-related inhabitants is a serious bit of territory. Civil Servant 07:32, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to come back again, but I am not sure how this debate relates to Talk:List of dependent territories and Special member state territories and their relations with the EU, on both of which I have contributed to support SBA inclusion. I take it there should be a consistent line about whether SBAs are a dependent territory and whether they are related to Europe (won't repeat why my views are yes and yes, except that if Cyprus is not in Europe, as opposed to EU, then fair enough SBAs would not be either). Civil Servant

Explanatory footers

Votes: 33
Support: 73%

Use explanatory footers, e.g. for Russia use, Also partly in Asia, or for Cyprus use, Geographically a part of Asia, but a member of the European Union, etc. Please vote regardless of your stand on the inclusion of some countries.

Support

  1. James F. (talk) 09:32, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
  2. Nikola 03:55, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
  3. Moravice 23:50, 1 June 2004 (UTC)
  4. ✏ Sverdrup 10:52, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  5. "DICK" CHENEY 01:53, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  6. Lethe 19:42, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Warofdreams 10:03, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  8. Shallot
  9. Picapica 12:14, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  10. Europa 03:51, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC) - very important
  11. Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 18:46, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  12. Alinor - footer notes are needed! They give the reasonable compromise in disputes and also the footer clarify the problematic entries
  13. Andre (talk) 00:31, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
  14. Blacklite 04:01, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  15. A D Monroe III 22:59, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) - Add some note somewhere; really no other solution to above discussions
  16. Bart133 (t) 00:13, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) Necessary.
  17. Jonathunder 00:53, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
  18. Chris 73 Talk 12:06, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC) - Maybe have a section partially in europe or so
  19. Beta m (talk) 18:37, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC) What is the problem with attempting to use both Europe/Asia templates (apart from the argument what do you put on top). Alternatively if another template is made then it should be Euroasia, since that is the propper name of the landmass.
  20. Teemu Leisti 22:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  21. Dmcdevit 03:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  22. Nightstallion 12:32, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) (vote changed from opposition on 17 Feb 2005)
  23. Wild ride 04:31, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  24. BrokenSegue 02:21, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Rmhermen 16:57, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
  2. Pædia
  3. Zoney 22:06, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
  4. Docu - They are too small.
  5. Matthewmayer 10:58, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  6. blankfaze | •­• 16:25, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  7. Hokanomono 22:15, 2004 Jul 5 (UTC)
  8. CheeseDreams 03:55, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) Again not in europe - east of bosphorus=asia.
  9. Cantus - Changed my vote I don't believe this is really needed.

Comments

I'm in favor of a short note for all debatable entries in the form "* see detailed definitions in article Europe." -- User:Docu

I'm against this for cosmetic reasons. --Cantus 21:15, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

How about*?

By the way, it seems that we are getting the worst of both worlds here. People who have voted against most of the countries have also voted against footers; together with people who are genuinely against footers, they are majority. This vote should have been conducted after the vote about countries is finished. Nikola 05:42, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

AOL. --Shallot

Georgia

Votes: 66
Support: 70%

Include in list.
Note: According to World Book, but not Britannica nor CIA - The World Factbook, Georgia lies partially in Europe, with the majority of the territory in Asia. Georgia is a member of the Council of Europe.

Support

  1. Zoney 09:10, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 09:32, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
  3. SimonP 02:56, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
  4. Nikola 03:55, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
  5. Matthewmayer 10:58, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  6. Moravice 23:50, 1 June 2004 (UTC)
  7. Cantus - I changed my vote. There are two possible definitions of the European/Asian boundary. Both should be taken into account.
  8. Shallot - Include, with some footnote.
  9. Dittaeva 18:54, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  10. Aris Katsaris 21:10, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  11. Europa 03:39, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC) - Georgia is historically and culturally a part of Europe
  12. Joao Campos 18:29, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  13. Alinor - if it has territory NORTH of the Caucaus watershed - undisputably geographicaly in Europe. If it does not have - like Cyprus it should be included for cultural, historical, political reasons (with footer note of course)
  14. Comrade Tassadar 09:05, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  15. Ejrrjs 21:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  16. J.K. [[]] 08:59, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  17. Andre (talk) 00:31, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
  18. A D Monroe III 20:14, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) - The eastern border of Europe is ill-defined; we should be inclusive
  19. Include, with footnote. Bart133 (t) 00:05, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  20. Nightstallion 12:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  21. Beta m (talk) 18:35, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
  22. Dmcdevit 03:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  23. Wild ride 04:31, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  24. Micga 00:47, 04 mar 2005 (CET)
  25. --Monkbel 11:07, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  26. --Tabib 15:04, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  27. Jacoplane 03:46, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  28. Instantnood 09:06, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  29. Leonardo 04:17, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  30. --THOTH 17:40, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) - I'm actually against Georgia, Armenia, Adjerbaijan and Khazakstan being considered as being in Europe - but if the latter two are then I will vote for the former - my vote switches if the latter two are no longer considered European. I'm also generally against Turkey being considered European.
  31. Why not? Juppiter 00:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  32. Joolz 18:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  33. Geographically it is according to some sources. Because the present government is aiming at an EU-membership and the country is already member of the Council of Europe, I think the country is within Europe. Maartenvdbent 20:31, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  34. BJS Georgia is historically and culturally European state.
  35. -- Stereotek 14:40, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  36. Obviously.  Grue  10:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  37. Why have footers 1 & 2 if we're not prepared to use them? Doops 18:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  38. Theathenae 29 June 2005 13:26 (UTC)
  39. SouthernComfort 3 July 2005 05:20 (UTC)
  40. Valentinian 14:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC) Include. If Georgia has territory in Europe, use the same footnote as used with Turkey / Russia. If not, use the footnote used for Cyprus. In principle, I oppose the inclusion of both Turkey and Azerbaijan in this list (though this has apparently been decided upon) since the larger part of either country is located in Asia. For cultural reasons, I include Russia and Cyprus in Europe. Since I consider both Georgia and Armenia to be more European than Azerbaijan it makes no sense to exclude Georgia and Armenia while including Azerbaijan.
  41. Lapsed Pacifist 16:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  42. KissL 15:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  43. If Turkey is European, Georgia is; I see no classification that can include one and exclude the other. Septentrionalis 17:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  44. Why are we even doing this? It seems rediculous to me. This is unwiki. Phroziac (talk)
  45. -- Elisson • Talk 17:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  46. WikiFan04Talk 12:49, 18 Jul 2005 (CDT)

Oppose

  1. Rmhermen 16:57, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
  2. Pædia
  3. blankfaze | •-• 16:08, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  4. Warofdreams 18:42, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC) - two of three respected sources say it isn't in Europe.
  5. Gdabski 14:04, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  6. "DICK" CHENEY 01:53, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  7. john k 06:04, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC) not in Europe by any reasonable standard
  8. Merovingian✍Talk 00:59, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
  9. webkid 13:14, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  10. older≠wiser 13:23, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  11. Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 18:38, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  12. PedanticallySpeaking 15:28, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
  13. Bogdan | Talk 10:58, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  14. Absolutely not. Dr Zen 11:32, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  15. No. Blacklite 04:00, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  16. Malyctenar 10:54, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) For principle, though it's even madder to split the 3 Caucasus countries and if the damage is already done with Azerbaijan...
  17. Chris 73 Talk 12:05, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  18. Teemu Leisti 22:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  19. *drew 04:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  20. Gugganij 19:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Can the World Book listings be verified? Pædia 20:22, 2004 Jun 3 (UTC)

Proof added to World Book link. --Cantus 23:43, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It wants itself to be considered part of Europe, so why not be inclusive about it? Historically Georgia's shores were a part of European trade and civilisation. Aris Katsaris 21:10, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC).

It has very little part in the common European heritage. Egypt has a better case, franklyDr Zen 11:32, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's not tue. Georgia is a member of the Council of Europe, an Egypt isn't. Maartenvdbent 20:31, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Georgia is even aiming at EU membership by 2015, so I don't really see any point in not adding it to the list... Nightstallion 19:23, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

46 / 66 is 0.6969... so this is not 70%! And even if it was, surely in this kind of a borderline situation is not appropriate to declare the poll closed?! I say we reopen it. --Joy [shallot] 22:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

I disagree with having qualifiers lumped with inclusion (agree to inclusion also means accepting qualifier). This too should be voted on seperately. For example, there is the substantial group who would simply consider Russia and Turkey (or at least Russia) as being part of Europe. Regardless of the geography. (Europe is a label that applies in many areas as well as geography, not to mention as a general "association").

My point is that the above suggested poll format allows me no outlet to disagree with having the qualifier. (also in individual cases I may be happy or not).

This must be addressed in any poll.

Zoney 18:31, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Is it the policy of Wikipedia to use votes presented in a poll to make decisions on questions like this? How could a majority in an accidental poll force a flag on a continent? I refuse to even participate in such a poll. --- Arnejohs 09:52, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't believe such polls as this are binding - however, the intention is most likely to attempt to gauge levels of support for various stances and attempt a compromise or consensus edit. It is probably of worth to include your stances – you could I suppose just list your votes in the comments section to emphasis the low level of authority you accredit this poll! Zoney 23:32, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

World Book and CIA - The World Factbook's definition of the Europe/Asia border differ with that of Britannica. The key of the matter is whether the limit passes over the Caucasus Mountains or through the Kuma-Manych Depression. The latter definition leaves out Georgia and Azerbaijan completely, while the former includes a small part of those countries. I believe people voting should keep that in mind and stick with one definition. --Cantus 00:44, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Also with Britannica's image Cyprus belongs to Europe as well as all islands in the Mediterranean Sea, which might be more consistent than other definitions which include for example all islands of the Aegean Sea (even those very close to Anatolia), but count the Balearic Islands as African and Cyprus as Asian. Being more consistent however doesn't nescessarily mean less arbitrary. Maybe we will just have to include all countries which could be considered European and state somewhere that this inclusion should never be used as a reference in other discussions. --Hokanomono 12:04, 2004 Jun 5 (UTC)
What source includes the Balearic Islands with Africa? Are not Sicily or Sardinia closer? Pædia 19:48, 2004 Jun 8 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I think I was mistaken. (I don't know why. Probably, I misread a map. Maybe it was http://www.europa.eu.int/abc/maps/members/spain_de.htm) --Hokanomono 19:09, 2004 Jun 15 (UTC)

On a lighter note, could we move the vote tallies and percentages to outside the section headers, for linking purposes? They are ever changing. Thanks. Pædia 03:43, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)

Whitaker's Almanack 2004

Whitaker's Almanack 2004 World Geographical Statistics page 2 states:

EUROPE, including European Russia, is the smallest continent in the northern hemisphere. Its extreme latitudes are 71°11′ N. at Nord Kapp in Norway, and 36° 23′ N. at Ákra Taínaron (Matapás) in southern Greece, a distance of about 2,400 miles. Its breadth from Cabo Carvoeiro in Portugal (9°34′ W.) in the west to the Kara River, north of the Urals (66°30′ E.) in the east is about 3,300 miles. The division between Europe and Asia is generally regarded as the watershed of the Ural Mountains; down the Ural river to Guryev, Kazakhstan; across the Caspian Sea to Apsheronskiy Poluostrov, near Baku; along the watershed of the Caucasus Mountains to Anapa and thence across the Black Sea to the Bosporus in Turkey; across the Sea of Marmara to Çanakkale Boğzi (Dardanelles).

This definitely includes in Europe, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and maybe Georgia, but not Armenia nor Cyprus. Pædia 20:09, 2004 Jun 5 (UTC)

World Book

Europe:

The Atlantic Ocean forms Europe's western boundary. The Ural Mountains, the Ural River, and the Caspian Sea form the eastern boundary of the continent. Europe extends from the Arctic Ocean in the north to the Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea, and the Caucasus Mountains in the south. Geographers consider Iceland, Great Britain, Ireland, and thousands of other islands that lie off the European mainland to be part of the continent.

Asia:

Asia and Europe are part of the same mass of land. No body of water separates the two completely, and so some geographers consider them as a single continent called Eurasia. Certain physical features mark the division between Asia and Europe. The Ural Mountains, Ural River, and Caspian Sea act as an east-west boundary in the north. The Dardanelles, Sea of Marmara, Bosporus Strait, Black Sea, and Caucasus Mountains link to form a north-south border in the west.

Britannica

Europe:

second smallest of the world's continents (after Australia), composed of the westward-projecting peninsulas of Eurasia and occupying nearly one-fifteenth of the world's total land area. It is bordered on the north by the Arctic Ocean, on the west by the Atlantic Ocean, and on the south (west to east) by the Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea, the Kuma-Manych Depression, and the Caspian Sea. The continent's eastern boundary (north to south) runs along the eastern Ural Mountains and the Zhem River. Europe's islands and archipelagoes include Novaya Zemlya, Iceland, the British Isles, Corsica, Sardinia, Sicily, Crete, Malta, and Cyprus.
As to the territorial limits of Europe, while these seem clear on its three seaward flanks, they have been uncertain and hence much debated on the east, where the continent merges, without sundering physical limits, with parts of western Asia. Even to the north and west, many island groups—Svalbard (Spitsbergen), the British Isles, the Faeroes, Iceland, and the Madeira and Canary islands—that are European by culture are included in the continent, although Greenland is conventionally allocated to North America. Further, the Mediterranean coastlands of North Africa and southwestern Asia also exhibit some European physical and cultural affinities, and Turkey and Cyprus, while geologically Asian, possess elements of European culture and may, perhaps, be regarded as parts of Europe. Eastward limits, now adopted by most geographers, assign the Caucasus Mountains to Asia and are taken to run southward along the eastern foot of the Urals and then across the Mugodzhar Hills, along the Emba River, and along the northern shore of the Caspian Sea. West of the Caspian, the European limit follows the Kuma-Manych Depression and the Kerch Strait to the Black Sea. Map.

Asia:

The land boundary between Asia and Europe is a historical and cultural construct that is subject to various interpretations; only as a matter of agreement is it tied to a specific borderline. The most convenient geographic boundary—one that has been adopted by most geographers—is a line that runs south from the Arctic Ocean along the eastern slope of the Ural Mountains and then turns southwest along the Zhem River to the northern shore of the Caspian Sea; west of the Caspian, the boundary follows the Kuma-Manych Depression to the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait.

[Note from Cantus: The Emba River is called Zhem, and the Ural River, Zhayyq, in Kazakh.]

--Cantus 00:37, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yet, Britannica cannot decide on the boundary. The Mount Elbrus article labels it: The highest peak in the Caucasus and in Europe. Pædia 19:48, 2004 Jun 8 (UTC)
Yet, that's from Britannica Concise... the Mount Elbrus article in the formal encyclopedia says nothing about it being in either Europe or Asia. --Cantus 21:15, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
They also state in their Europe article, that Turkey and Cyprus, while geologically Asian, possess elements of European culture and may, perhaps, be regarded as parts of Europe., which is interesting because earlier in the article they assigned Cyprus to Europe. --Cantus 21:15, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Another source

According to this totally anonymous source, the limits are:

These are conventional limits. North to south: Arctic Ocean, Zemlya Frantsa Iosifa (RUS), Novaya Zemlya (RUS), Vaygach (RUS), Sea of Kara, Kara River (RUS), Ural Mountains (RUS) and the Zhem River (Emba) (KAZ) (according to other sources, the Ural Mountains (RUS – KAZ) and the Zhayyq River (Ural) (RUS – KAZ)), the Caspian Sea shore (KAZ – RUS), Caucasus Mountains (RUS), the Black Sea shore (RUS – UCR – MOL – RUM - BUL – TUR), the Bosporus Strait (TUR), Dardanelles Strait (TUR) and the Aegean Sea.

--Cantus 05:47, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Other European footer

Hi there,

Due to the duplication of countries in both EU and Europe footers, I created a new Template:European_countries_not_in_EU for those European countries not in the EU. This need only be put on pages which have the EU footer - other european countries should probably stick with this Europe footer.

Before I change all other EU country pages (I've only changed UK and Ireland), I'm just looking to see if there's any major objections?

Zoney 21:31, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:EU countries Zoney 23:33, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Category

It's a good idea to add Category:European countries here, but then the manually added copy in each of the pages that have it should be pruned, too. --Joy [shallot] 09:31, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Unneeded polls about including a territory into Europe

The current Europe page is very good in that respect - the list of european countries. It is the best! All things are taken into account, the disputable countries have explanation-footers, so both pro- and against- people should be content. If someone says something like "It is unthinkable to include Kazakhstan" - then this person should be capable of giving an exact explanation where (and why exactly there) in Russia the Europe border is, so that we can distinguish between Kazakshtan-bordering russian asian territories and around-the-europe-border russian territories. I don't think that it is good that we take the easy path of maximum convenience - "Russia is somehow european, no one disputes that, so we declare that Europe ends SOMEWHERE in Russia and we DON'T BOTHER where EXACTLY, it DOESN'T matter". Such thinking is too single-dimensional :)

We shouldn't try and decide on the borders of Europe. That would be like deciding that Napoleon was a liberator rather than a conqueror -- that's POV, right? Various sources outside Wikipedia disagree; I think we're required to report on the disagreement. A D Monroe III 23:14, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The problem is and always will be that there is a piece of Kazakhstan that is arguably in Europe but there is absolutely no way it is a "European" country. (There are benefits to being considered part of Europe so nations tend to want in, of course, but that's not the same thing as being considered European.) Meanwhile, Cyprus arguably has no territory in the European continent but there is absolutely no way it is not a "European" country. There's no resolution of it unless you plump for geography or culture, and to do so is, of course, POV. (CheeseDreams, unsigned)

I agree with A D Monroe III, it is more a political decision to include some countries and others not, see for example Cyprus. That this discussion would occur was quite obvious and after a year it hasn't still ended and it will probably never end. The reason is that Europe is not a fixed geographical reason, many encyclopaedias try to do so, but always find themself compromising or copying it from somewhere else. Ask people what is Europe and most of them wouldn't be able to define it. On the other hand, one could say that there are many descriptions for a geographically Europe. A minor Europe and a major Europe. I remember on holidays in Sweden that people there often refer to Europe as the part south of the Scandinavian peninsula. Even politicians of the EU have large discussions of what is Europe now exactly. The main reason is, Europe is not a geographical region, but rather cultural, trying to define it in a geographical sense would be very difficult. It is not a continent as such but part of the Eurasian continent, so somewhere in the middle one would find difficulties. This whole talk page is POV, what I'm saying is also POV, and adding some countries is POV, leaving some countries out is POV. So it will be very difficult to make this page NPOV. I think it's unnecessary to create a template about Europe as a region, because this definition is not clear. There's one of the Council of Europe, who is gathering, I believe the majority of the 'European' countries.--Eigenwijze mustang 08:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cantus rv ???

Cantus, why have you reverted my edits??? It is clearly stated that for a pool to be closed there are two requierments - "minimum 15 votes" and "70% for yes or no". The 'obvious' pools about Svalbard, etc. are with only 11 votes (I voted 12th, still 3 votes needed), so they were wrongly closed! It is not fair to bend the rules in such a way. Maybe the next 100 votes will be for the opposing cause of the current "result". Please explain.Alinor 08:20, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

When you have 11 votes for support there is no way to change the outcome of the poll. Do the math. —Cantus…☎ 08:53, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
My omission. OK. But still, it is possible (tough not likely) that the 12th, 13th and 14th are opposing and the 15th and 16th voters (both oposing) vote very quickly one after another, so the result gets below 70% and then the next voters can completely reverse it.Alinor 09:50, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
So, I think that it is best to leave the votes open until the rules are formally met, not mathematicaly. This (my edits) will make no harm and is more fair. Alinor 09:52, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Another point about strict following the rules (waiting until 15 people have voted - and reopening current pools with less than 15 votes) - as you can see some people have changed their vote - becouse of new information, etc. So, even when 11 votes are enough to get 70% out of 15 - maybe the 12th, 13th and/or 14th voter (these 'new voters' can hypotheticaly can vote 'against the first 11 voters') will give such arguments that convince some of the first 11 to change their vote and so - later the case can be decided in contrary to the current CLOSED decision (if 15th, 16th, etc. voters reach the reversed-70%). My point - pools with less than 15 positions are CLOSED AGAINST THE RULES. We should wait until the 15th vote before closing. I will now cast my vote in the closed sections with less than 15 votes. Later, if no one objects I may reopen them, so that we can finish them by the rules.Alinor 17:44, 31 Mar 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 01:45, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

(Please join the discussion at Talk:Bicontinental country#Spain and Portugal.) — Instantnood 11:31, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Armenia and Georgia

Please, see vandalism by User:Caligvla, who removed four legitimate support votes for Armenia's inclusion in Template:Europe. [21]

I also suggest us to finally close these polls on Georgia and Armenia. Majority have already supported their inclusion in Template:Europe and there is no need to protract this already protracted poll even further.--Tabib 04:46, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Yep, it's fucking stupid when Azerbaidzhan is in while Georgia and Armenia (and Kazakhstan too) are not. How's the border between Europe and Asia should be jumping to evade these countries? That would surely attract topologist's attention - Jordan curve theorem is contradicted!  Grue  10:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

European Broadcasting Union

I think the EBU article gives a good idea of what should be in Europe. The EBU is obviously EU influenced and the "Members in Europe" includes Georgia, Turkey, Armenia, Moldova and others. Hedley 15:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

A map?

Could someone, perhaps, create a map that would show where the European-Asian border is (including more than one theory as applicable) in regards to nearby countries, and then place this map here? That would certainly help a lot of people to make a more informed decision.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:51, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

There are links to maps within this page. Yes, the maps aren't that great. —Cantus…☎ 02:22, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Those are not exactly what I had in mind. My suggestion was to include just one map that would show all possible variants of the geographical border of Europe. Besides, if shown prominently on this page, it would be much more useful than well-hidden links to not-so-great maps we already have.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 02:37, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
See again here Transcontinental nation.Alinor 11:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Compromise?

OK, it's obvious that the polling mechanism here hasn't really worked. The polls hovering inconclusively beetween 30 and 70% deserve to be put out of their misery. Couldn't there by a compromise 3rd footnote, reading something like "considered by some observers to belong to Europe, by others solely to Asia." ? Doops 18:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Armenia and Georgia - 2

Isn't it about time to wrap these two up and include them in the template? As others have noted, Azerbaijan and Turkey are already in the list, so what exactly is the hold up here? SouthernComfort 3 July 2005 05:20 (UTC)

I guess it's all about economy. Turkey and azerbaijan can offer oil and developed industries. I am not familiar with Armenia but Georgia does belong to Europe since Georgian culture is absolutely European. Nancy 3 July 2006 2:07 (USA)

Neither Armenia, nor Georgia, Azerbaijan or Turkey belong to Europe. I don't understand! Is it a shame to be in Asia? -- tasc wordsdeeds 18:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Turkey was put here only because its poll was combined with Russia.--Nixer 11:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

poll taking too much time

  • Look at the page Transcontinental nations for borders definitions, discussions, maps, etc.
  • I mostly agree with the above two suggestions - the poll may take forever... Maybe the next time we should put a maximum lenght of 6 months and after that 50%+1vote should be sufficient for decision...
  • I look at the current results in the following way: 1. if Russia and Turkey are to be included (they are voted YES already) - then the list is not 'exclusievely european', so the other states with european territory should get there - Kazakhstan (it is still in the poll) for sure (by even the mostly wrong definitions), Azerbaijan (voted YES already) and Georgia (still in the poll). 2. if Cyprus is included (voted YES already) - then Armenia (still in the poll) should be included too, becouse both countries are only culturally/historically/politically european and geographicaly belong to Asia. 3. if Azerbaijan is included (voted YES already) then Georgia (still in the poll) should be included too, becouse they are in the same group (in or out, but aways the same for these two) in all posible definitions of the border. 4. also, if Russia and Turkey are excluded (impossible now) - then Cyprus should be excluded too (and also all other debatable countries) - the list would become exclusievely european. 5. about the flag - the other continents have no flags, this flag is used by CoE/EU and they don't cover the whole continent, etc. - my personal opinion is to go without the flag (at least until all states join CoE or the EU).
  • conclusion - the already achieved results (70%/30%) are enough to logicaly sort the remaining issues - it would be un-logical if the results of the remaining polls are opposite to the already closed polls - there would be contradictions, so we should take the results from the already closed polls and according to them - deal with the still open polls.Alinor 11:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. Nightstallion 11:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

This poll is simply unwiki

Voting inclusion of countries in a template, by deciding which definition of Europe to take is simply unwiki and is against "neutral point of view" concept so important for Wikipedia. Polls should only be used when the decision does not concern what definition to take as sole truth, Wikipedia does not take position, because taking position is not NPOV. There is a geographical definition of Europe, and neither Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia are in. "European culturaly" is a subjective term and can be debated, and being member of "Concil of Europe" or such bodies does not amount to reject the position that all of those four countries are not part of Europe. For those reasons, it is logical that for a country to be included in a template of Europe, it should be geographically in Europe, with 50%+1 of its territory inside Europe. If the template does not do this, it reject the main notion that run Wikipedia. I can't even believe in the first place that so much people have voted without even pointing out how this poll is unwiki. What will be next? To vote wherever or not a god exist, so we shall vote for a "truth" here? Or what about a truth on which god between, Yaveh, Jeohav, Allah, God are more powerful, so that we can build a template with an order between the most powerful gods to the less powerful ones? What if, I, as a Wikipedian, adhere to the position(which, one has to admit, is supported by the majority in the Academia), that all those four countries are NOT in Europe, want to build a template about the countries of Europe, and exclude those four countries, would my POV position be rejected by another POV position(this template)??? Fadix 01:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with some things that you say, but disagree with others. Why do you place the barrier for inclusion at "50%+1" (and "1" is meaning what? - 1square inch, 1 foot, 1 milimeter, 1 kilometer, 1 thousend killometers, etc.?)?? This is too arbitrary. I think that inclusion, whatever the percentage, is good, if we place a footnote explaining that the state in question is only paritialy in europe.
50% + 1 simply means that over half of the land is in geographical Europe, this regardless of the unit used. I don't think this is arbitrary, if over half the land is in Europe, it can just be considered as in Europe. Besides, I don't think there is any countries, which will be included with a close call like 50% + 1. We can not start assuming that a country is in Europe just because a slight fraction is in Europe, it would be supporting one point of view against another, but if we do use the geographical definition, and that we include a country based on whever or not more than half the land is in Europe, we have a logical ground which could not be contradicted, because those countries that would be included will certainly be in Europe, and those opposing their inclusion will be a fringe of the population, a clear minority and their POV could be excluded because: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." ( Jimbo Wales, September 2003, on the mailing list). This is where we must stick, and this regardless of the polls result, because those polls are simply unwiki. Fadix 21:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
If we go the ">50% of the territory to lie in Europe" path there will be two obstacles: 1. Azerbaijan is a little less than 50%, so a debate will arise. 2. Russia is much less than 50%, so it will have to be excluded and you can bet that THIS will get a BIG debate. Just look the 16-vs-0 results stating YES to Russia inclusion in the list. I think that we should include ALL countries that have SOME territory in Europe (so that no one objects the list - if it has european territory - it is included). Of course with footnotes explaining that they are "paritialy located in Europe", etc. The same applies to Asia template, etc.
I don't think that Azerbaijan is just a little less than 50%, it has what is considered "European" route to Asia, as the only section of its land which could be considered as in Europe. It has neither a land justifiction or Cultural justification(cultural justification here won't say much, as Canada and Australia have culturul justification, but it won't make those nations European). Again, having part of a territory in Europe, doesn't justify taking one POV against another. See my first message. The same goes with Turkey, one of the obstacles of its inclusion in the EU is that it is not geographically neither culturally(but again, this part should be not that important) European. There are bunch of old texts, claming Armenia as being an European country in Asia, in old publications, treating Ani the ancient Armenian capital, that was called the city of a thousand and one churchs was allegedly an European city. Those are all POV, and the inclusion will be taking a POV against another, and is unwiki. It would be logical therefor to include only those countries which has over 50% of their lands, because at least then, there won't be any opposition of the inclusion. As for the opposition of the exclusion, lets just say that there is a significant portion of the population that don't believe those countries being European, so that we may consider their POV as well. The same goes with Russia, Russia over the years was not really considered as European, it was only after the fall of the Soviet Union and with the death of the Soviet threat. Lastly, and this is an important question to ask. Why was this template created? Is it really worthy? Why not, simply, delete it, and spare us all this poll thing, which is unwiki. We can't vote on the exclusion of one point of view against another. It would be better to treat those position, individually in the entry of each countries, at least then, both positions will be developped and presented clearly, and there will be no exclusion of one against the other. Fadix 14:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
You say that to consider Russia non-european is not a POV. I don't agree - they have nearly 25% of their territory in Europe - how is the ignoring of this not a POV? Turkey and Azerbaijan have territories in Europe (even if they are less than 50% for Azerbaijan and less than 5% for Turkey. Anyway Azerbaijan has more percentage of its area in Europe than Turkey - the fact that Azerbaijan's european territory is much more 'remote' and 'not-as-famous' as Turkey's and Istanbul has nothing to do with the numbers.) and you can not simply ignore the FACTS, becouse you don't like their culture, becouse they are not members of the EU or for whatever other reason. Also here is not a place to argue about cultures (as you also say). Pooling is unwiki - I agree - but sometimes it is hard to reach a compromise, and so why not try this way (pool)... It is not correct that if we follow your ">50% rule" there will be no opposition - I showed you an example - people vote in a very short time 16-vs-0 for inclusion of both Russia and Turkey, so you can bet on serious opposition, becouse your rule excludes both of these UNDISPUTABLE (as shown by the results) PARITIALY european states. The problem here is mostly territorual and so we should stick to facts and not to the vague interpretations of "sizable portion of the people" - when it is proven that the Earth is spherical we should not show the POV of people supporting the "flat-earth"-conception - it is simply untrue. Anyways, I agree that the place for this debate is on the pages of the individual countries or here. Also, the template is surely usefull for reference purposes on many pages - the problem with some 6-7 states that lie on the border is a minor detail. I don't see what don't you like in the current arrangement of things - countries that have some of their territory (even the major parts) on another continent have a note beside them and there is explanation... this way multiple POVs are accounted for.
Where I said that to consider Russia non-European is not a POV? What I said was that the position maintained by those opposing the inclusion is not only supported by a fringe of the population. The reason why Azerbaijan has land in Europe is because the land it has on Europe was more of an European route to Asia than anything else. Poll the Academia, or geographic works, how much you'll find include those nations as part of Europe? It is recognized that Russia do have a part of its land in Europe, this is how it is treated, and this can, and is probably mentioned in the entry about Russia, that's a neutral point of view, but to say that Russia is European, is not. The templates existence is just a pain in the a. because it takes position by supporting a POV against another.
As for your justification that since it was a 16-0 vote in cases of Turkey and Russia, this doesn't make much sense. Because the vote was unwiki in the first place, it is like passing a vote on wherever or not a god exist, and from the result make a judgment on the POV that should be accepted in Wikipedia. Popularity does not make something less POV. So my suggestion is to either stick with a geographical position, and based on what is generally agreed, or simply deleting the template. Fadix 17:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I concur: this poll is unwiki; this template is unwiki. Consensus is unattainable, especially by the proposal above to decide the 50-50 Kazakhstan vote administratively. I have proposed the deletion of the template, on these frounds, as well as redundancy with Category:Europe Septentrionalis 18:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Fadix. Than you people wonder why we dislike axpars such as you so much. We are European, always have been. If you people want to be a separate ethnic group than so be it. Because of your Middle Eastern heritage you're dragging the rest of us with you, not a chance. It's funny how ou didn't mentiuon Cyprus.--Eupator 22:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
What should I conclude from this statment? I assume you're an Armenian? What is so in, to be included in a template of Europe? Just answer to this question. Do someone get a prize for being included? Is it a pride to be included there? And what the "we" means? Who is this "we" that dislike people like me? And for what? For saying that Armenia is not in Europe? Just take a look at it again, Turkey, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia are to be included in a template of Europe. This isen't about my opinion, is is about if those polls and inclusions are Wiki or not. That I would want some countries to be included or not, is independent from what is Wiki. As for Cyprus, Cyprus is an Island, for this reason, I can't comment on it. How you draw borders passing through an Island. Fadix (My Talk) 23:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
The fact that you're asking these questions is the problem. You have no identity. You and those like you from the Diaspora are confused products of the Genocide. This matters, our total and final reunification with the European community after 600 years living with savages under occupation and the re-enlightenment of our culture and society. Everything else is secondary, including the useless Genocide campaigns you waste your time on. Oh yeah, Ireland, Malta, Iceland and Britain are also islands. I agree that there shouldn't be a poll, because the fact that Armenia is a European country is not open to debate. If you don't consider yourself European you're not Armenian and can't be Armenian as far as i'm concerned.--Eupator 00:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
This sort of BS has no place in the talk page of an article. Consider this my last answer of the kind here. I am not European, I am a Canadian. Europe is nothing more than a term attached to a Geocultural social construct. I'm neither born in an European country, neither have passed most of my time in an European country, why should I consider myself as European? And what the hell my affiliation has anything to do here? I repeat, what I've been saying. Those polls are Unwiki, to vote on which POV to include as truth or untruth is unwiki. The only such template we might have, is when the opposition of an inclusion is a fringe minority, in which cases, it would have no place in Wikipedia, and the position could be ignored. That is all I was requesting. No one can blame me for trying to keep the intergrity of this site, and here I detected an Unwiki act. Feel free to draw a portrait of myself based on my answers here, it always help to know whom to ignore. Thank you. Fadix (My Talk) 00:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Why #Russia & Turkey?

I can certainly understand a vote that Russia is European and Turkey is not, and I see no place on this poll to express one. Septentrionalis 17:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I also think that it was better to vote for every country individualy, but anyway - the Russia&Turkey pool is closed a long time ago, so you anyway can not vote neighter on Russia, neighter on Turkey. Vote on the still open pools if you wish.
Oh, I am reasonably content with the result in this case; but it puts the legitimacy of the poll into question. Turkey may have been log-rolled into Europe on the back of Russia - or vice versa. Septentrionalis 16:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Agree. They shoulded be voted separetely - they are in different parts of Europe and it is THEORETICALY possible that the border totaly excludes one of them, but includes the other...Alinor 17:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
On a side note - I think that such list should be geographical/territorial mainly, so that both Russia and Turkey are "paritialy in Europe" and also in the list. Turkey has the smallest european territory (both as percentage and as absolute value) of all transcontinental states here, but anyway it has SOME.

Compromise revisited

Well, my suggestion above that we work for a fresh compromise was greeted by a resounding silence; but please look below at the attempt I've made, all undismayed, at a compromise template. Although Fadix (see above) is wrong to suggest that we have no business going beyond "objective" geography (our aim should be to tell the full story, even if it is messy), it is certainly true that voting up/down on each individual country hasn't worked in the best interests of NPOV and has threatened the reputation of this template. The solution is not to delete it altogether but to find some sort of compromise which will allow it to be fixed. This have I attempted below. Doops | talk 19:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC), edited 22:42


Template:Europe2 — countries in Europe
Albania | Andorra | Austria | Belarus | Belgium | Bosnia and Herzegovina | Bulgaria | Croatia | Czech Republic | Denmark | Estonia | Finland | France | Germany | Greece | Hungary | Iceland1 | Ireland | Italy | Latvia | Liechtenstein | Lithuania | Luxembourg | Macedonia | Malta | Moldova | Monaco | Netherlands | Norway | Poland | Portugal | Romania | San Marino | Serbia and Montenegro | Slovakia | Slovenia | Spain | Sweden | Switzerland | Ukraine | United Kingdom | Vatican City
Countries straddling the Europe-Asia boundary as conventionally defined: Azerbaijan | Georgia | Kazakhstan | Russia | Turkey
Countries wholly in Asia, but sometimes considered European for cultural or historical reasons: Armenia | Cyprus
Dependencies: Akrotiri and Dhekelia (Asian geographically) | Faroe Islands | Gibraltar | Guernsey | Jan Mayen | Jersey | Isle of Man | Svalbard
1. Iceland partly in North America
Going beyond objective geography is subjective, and one can not do it withoug taking position, which is a point of view. The template was excluding another point of view. On the other hand, your template is Wiki and should replace the other one. Fadix (My Talk) 23:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I think that we should stick to geographical definition of the border, otherwise the things get too messy.
Also, I don't see big difference between the two versions (the current one and yours). You are using slightly different layout (sub-lists instead of notes) and wording of the notes/sub-list names. The only important difference is that your version is made as if the last 3 remaining pool issues (out of totaly 14) are concluded with results "inclusive with a footnote" for Armenia and Kazakhstan and "don't use" for the Flag. I also think that these are the logical results (Kazakhstan should be included if Russia is included - sharing the same portion of the border; Armenia should be included if Cyprus is included - both are geographicaly in Asia; Continents don't have flags and the proposed flag is not assosiated with all states in the list). But I think that it is better fisrt to take a decision to abandon the remaining open pools (to close them 'logicaly, according to the results of related closed pools') and only then finish the work on the template.Alinor 17:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
The two templates are different. The second one is more Wiki, it clearly separate what is considered as in Europe, and the others, it does not try to present a POV as sole truth, rejecting the other. That is why, that template, I believe should replace the other one. Fadix (My Talk) 19:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Lemme explain: I thought that perhaps splitting off the "questionable" countries rather than including them in the main list would make them less contentious. I can't, personally, fathom the perspective of the non-inclusionists (whom does it hurt to include a couple of extra names?); but whatever their reservations are, I'm hoping that they'll be assuaged by my version's greater clarity. (And as far as "waiting for the results" is concerned ‐ it's obvious that the two open polls are doomed to wait that way forever.) Doops | talk 17:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
OK, let's see what will they (the exclusionists/oppositionist to inclusion of the transcontinental nations) say. But don't forget "choosy inclusionists" that want Russia and/or Cyprus or other in the list and the other similar states - out of the list...84.242.172.164 17:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


This template is much better than the one that is being used currently. For one thing it is not POV like the current one.--Moosh88 06:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

To voters against inclusion of both Cyprus and Armenia

I would suggest to people that voted against both Cyprus and Armenia (such that rightfully say: "geographycaly asian" for both) and to people that voted against Armenia only (after the Cyprus pool was closed) on the same grounds - to change their Armenia vote to "include (with footnote '2' of course)", becouse Cyprus is already included and so if Armenia is excluded the template will be clearly POV-ed and in conflict with itself. This way maybe one more pool will be closed soon.Alinor 17:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Also, as I see some voted 'opposing' to Armenia, but say: "exclude; or eventualy include if with a footnote" (maybe there are such votes in the Kazakhstan case too). Maybe they have voted before the footnotes-pool was closed. Now we have footnotes, so maybe they will want to change their vote to "include" too, becouse the condition they stipulated is satisfied.Alinor 16:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The footnote satisfies me. The mainstream geographical boundary of Europe changes according to socio-economic and political trends, both Cyprus and Armenia are ethnically, culturally and historically European. Same can be said of Georgia to a lesser extent. Azerbaijan, Turkey and Kazakhstan are the exact opposite of Cyprus and Armenia, having nothing to do with Europe culturally, historically or ethnically but they have territories in the current mainstream definition of Europe.--Eupator 18:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
This is neither here nor there, but I have to say that Turkey at least does have quite a lot to do with Europe culturally, historically, and ethnically (especially historically; the Ottoman Empire was reckoned one of the major European players in the 19th century). Doops | talk 05:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
The region known as Anatolia with its native inhabitants was culturally, ethnically and linguistically European up until the day when Turkic hordes invaded from their steppes in Altai. It ends with Turks. I do recognize that the overwhelming majority of Turks have very little do with the original Turks from Central Asia and are mostly Turkicized descendants of the natives (except some Turanids: Asian/Caucasian mix) but that doesn't change the fact that they see themselves as Turks; hence, they don't behave or think like we do. The Ottoman Empire was not part of Europe it was the archenemy of Europe and Western civilization. --Eupator 13:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Good grief. Doops | talk 17:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
" Tomer TALK 18:09, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Iceland

If Kazakstan is excluded because of its questionable existence in the continent of Europe, while Cyprus is included with a proviso, why is Iceland wholly included in Europe? It's in the middle of the ocean, not close to any part of the European landmass, it stradles two tectonic plates, and the crust beneath it is oceanic crust, not continental. By the crustal view, it's not part of any continent. By the plate view, it's connected to North America as much as Europe, and should have a proviso attached. 132.205.94.174 22:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

No problem with that, I'm in favour. Nightstallion 07:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, maybe it should be 'pooled' too.
And also Greenland - its situation is similar to Cyprus/Akthiori&Dhekila - culturaly/historicaly Denmark-ish (so - european) - it's a dependency and also member of the Council of Europe (as part of Denmark), but outside the EU. Maybe it should be added under dependencies with a note "Geographicaly North American, but considered European for cultural and historical reasons". I think that these two pools will be finished fast (they are not so controversial as Armenia).62.204.151.1 19:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Is it actually considered as part of Europe, and if so, are there any sources for this? -- Joolz 19:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Greenland? Mh, good call whether it's actually considered part of Europe. One could argue that it's a fortiori a member of the Council of Europe since Denmark is, but with notable independence efforts (with likely results sometime before 2010) I'm not quite sure... It most certainly is not European culturally, and absolutely not geographically. Maybe if we make the footnote "geographically and culturally North American, but considered European by some for historical reasons"? Nightstallion 19:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
It's not up for us to decide whether it's European or not, is there anyone notable which actually considers it so? I don't think being a dependency of a European country makes the dependency eligable for the infobox either (if we're using that as a criteria) - if so the Pitcairn Islands should go in too -- Joolz 00:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
While we're at it, why not add all the members of the British Commonwealth and la Communauté Française? Tomer TALK 03:07, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Greenland? Greenland is North American by culture (Inuit culture), and North American by continent 132.205.44.43 19:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
A lot discussion on continental boundries and the continental status of different nations has taken place around the transcontinental nation page. You could consult that or contribute to that discussion. Personally I think it is imposible to find absolute continental boundaries as the whole notion of a continent is a human construct. Gazzapedia 18:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the note to say Iceland is 'partly in North America' is correct. It is partly on the North American plate, but that's not at all the same thing. I doubt you'd find a single person in Reykjavík who thinks their city is in North America. If anyone can find a reputable source which agrees with the footnote, then it should be cited - otherwise, I think the note should be removed. Worldtraveller 22:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Neither is it in Europe, though it is partly on the Eurasian plate. It's in the middle of the Ocean (ever more so than the British Isles, whose people consider themselves apart from Europe). It's only culturally European, geographically now... 132.205.44.43 19:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'd contend that it is in Europe, because Europe is not purely a geographically-defined entity but a cultural one as well. No-one from Iceland would say they live in North America. Incidentally, many British people consider themselves apart from Europe in the sense of the European Union, but I don't think you'd find many of us who claimed not to be part of the continent. Worldtraveller 14:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
There are notes on other countries that are geographically not Europe but are one the template, so Iceland seems to be just like those. If North America is disagreeable because it's rather far from the continental shelf, then the same objection with being geographically part of Europe would apply, and it would still have a note, saying that it's only culturally part of Europe, and not geographically there at all. 132.205.44.43 19:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I believe that Iceland is a part of Europe and is considered by all reasonable authorities to be part of Europe. Unless there is a source to back the suggestion that it's part North American, it shouldn't really be stated as such in the article. Worldtraveller 23:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Since when have tectonic plates been the standard defining continents? If that were the case then Arabia and India would be continents on their own and the north of Japan would belong to North America etc etc. Stop imposing a non-existant "geographical" definition of Europe, Wikipedia is meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive. --Bjarki 23:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Here's my two cents/pennies: Iceland is solidly European, culturally and politically, and is geographically partly European. Greenland is partly European in the political and cultural sense, whereas Kazakhstan is partly European in all three senses, including the cultural sense. //Big Adamsky 13:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

TFD Nomination July 2005

Template nominated for deletion on July 19; result of discussion/vote was to Keep. See the relevant entry on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/July 2005. RedWolf 06:02, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Dependent territories / special territories

There's currently a discussion at template talk:East Asia over whether the official name of territory, namely special administrative region, and which sovereign State the territories listed belong to, have to be specified in the {{East Asia}} template. Please feel free to join the discussion and express your opinion. — Instantnood 11:48, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Åland

Why is Åland not included in the template? It is listed on the list of countries in the same manner as Svalbard. It may or may not be a dependency, but it is usually listed alongside with sovereign States as other dependent territories do. — Instantnood 14:11, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

According to the vote (see above) and the page itself, it's not a dependency but an autonomus region of Finland. -- Joolz 19:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
The vote above says it's not a dependency, but that's not a reason not to include it. Why can't it be included in the box as a special territory or whatever name it suits? — Instantnood 21:03, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
From my reading of the vote they chose not to include it because it's part of Finland. -- Joolz 21:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Jan Mayen and Svalbard are part of Norway too. Faroe Islands and Greenland are part of the Kingdom of Denmark. Whether or not is it part of a sovereign State is not quite relevant. — Instantnood 07:33, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
There must be a difference from being a dependent territory (Greenland et al.) and an autonomous region (Åland) -- Joolz 09:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
A dependent territory may or may not be part of the soveregin state. Even if it is not a dependent territory, is there any problem to list it in the box? It can be listed not together with other dependent territories. — Instantnood 09:43, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
There was a vote that concluded with Åland being excluded, to put it back in you must seek consensus for the change. This probably entails holding another poll. -- Joolz 16:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
It was voted out because people don't think it's a dependency. There is no discussion on whether non-dependency, assuming it is not one, should or should not be excluded. — Instantnood 18:03, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
If it is a dependency, it gets listed as one. If it is not, and considered a part of the mother country's core, then it is a subnational entity and not included. I suppose by this, you are asking for a discussion on whether to include subnational entities in the list? I doubt you are going to get a very positive answer.--Huaiwei 21:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
In what way is Åland is part of Finland's "core"? — Instantnood 08:58, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Åland due to its special international position should be included in the list. It has more autonomy than Svalbard or Jan Mayen Electionworld 22:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I would disagree, however. Level of autonomy is not a deciding factor, and nor is it a sole criterion in deciding if an entity is a dependency or a subnational entity.--Huaiwei 22:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes level of autonomy is not a factor to decide whether or not a territory is a dependency. Some dependencies enjoy no or little autonomy. Nevertheless dependency status is not the only criterium for listing. — Instantnood 08:58, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Regions and countries

Theathenae gave this reason for not using simply "Macedonia" in the template:

"Macedonia is a region spanning several countries, not a single country."

This is also the case of "Moldova", most of the historical region of Moldova is outside the Republic of Moldova. Should we write "Republic of Moldova" instead of simply Moldova or do we have double standards ? :-) bogdan | Talk 20:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the historical region is called Moldavia in English, and Moldova's name is not a matter of international dispute. If you want to talk double standards, explain why you say Moldova instead of Moldavia but insist on calling the FYROM Macedonia instead of Makedonija. In any case, Macedonia is an entirely separate article from FYROM.--Theathenae 20:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Wisest Solution Europe Asia Topography

Topography Technology Solves Europe Asia Border Dispute

Many have allowed sentiment and personal bias to draw the Geographical border between Europe and Asia. There are many ways of defining the border. 1) Historically 2) Present Cultural Prevalence 3) DNA (which has not been perfected) & 4) Geographical Consensus.

In this discussion we are discussing the Geographical border.

When discussing geography one does not use the words “significant” or “insignificant”. Any piece of land is significant and many a nation has warred over a simple plot of land, and every State in the US is significant.

We can draw on many ideas as to the Europe Asia Geographical Border but the majority of Geographers fixed the Eastern and South Eastern borders as the Ural Mountains & River…..and the Caucasus. And of those Geographers is an established consensus that the Peaks of the Greater Caucasus marks the border.

The Caucasus are divided into Greater and Lesser portions. The Greater Caucasus runs horizontally and generally between Georgia and Russia…..and also Azerbaijan and Russia. I use the word “Generally” just as away to generalize ourselves with the area….the exact points can be found using Topographical Technology Programs.

Topographical Technology digitally maps the entire Greater Caucasus System into a 3 dimensional image that includes exact data on elevation. Since the Greater Caucasus System is an Unbroken chain mountain that runs between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea the mapping is extremely EXACT.

The program then draws a continuous line on the highest summits across the Entire Mountain Chain. Hence, you know the highest line of demarcation between Europe and Asia as agreed by the great majority of geographers. The Same is done for the Ural Mountains.

Now for Data Collecting and Percentages.

Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkey, Georgia & Azerbaijan would have listed the amount of land in Europe and in Asia. Then Each Nation would be assigned an exact Percent Number of the total land is in Europe. For example Turkey has around 3 % of its land in Europe.

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATION. Russia has more land in Europe then the other nations mentioned here, Followed by Kazakhstan, Followed by Turkey, Followed by Azerbaijan, Followed by Georgia. The order may differ in regards to percent of total land in Europe. Armenia may be argued into Europe by using a Cultural or Historical method yet not by using a Geographical Method with the Greater Caucasus as the demarcation point. Remember, the Greater Caucasus is one of the worlds most perfect examples of a watershed, rigid and definitive, an ideal border

Thank you,

Arabian

Note: The Greater Caucasus is a horizontal unbroken chain that slightly dips down into Azerbaijan. That is why Azerbaijan has more land in Europe then Georgia. Sentimentalists have tried to include the majority of Georgia's land into Europe, yet this is not a common view. The common most agreed upon view by geographers is that the border between Asia and Europe is very near Georgia's northern border, also Azerbaijans northern border, yet because of the way the Greater Caucasus dips south into Azerbaijan near the Caspian, Azerbaijan ends up with more land in Europe then Georgia. Georgia may have less than 1% of its land in Europe, and it wouldn't be astonishing to find it has less then 0.5%.

EEA?

There appear to be some misunderstanding about what the European Economic Area is regarding the last edit. EEA = EU + EFTA - Switzerland. None of those countries below the header "Members of the European Economic Area (EEE)" belongs to it. --Bjarki 21:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

what is the deal with this new footer?

What is the deal with this new footer for countries of europe? Not only are these maps and geographical area subjective, but many countries and territories are left out. Where is San Marino? Malta? Vatican City? Some of these grouping to not even make much sense. The simple list before, with explanations that some countries like russia and turkey had terriory in asia as well, and and listing of places like the faroe island and gibraltor, made so much more sense. i think this new one is a shame, and might be taken as offensive, and is far less informative.--sterms 19:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

What we can read in Europe article: Sub-divisions of Europe are highly arbitrary, as little consensus exists on the various definitions that are proposed. No strict geographical conventions exist; the map below represents, however, the most widespread idea of what countries constitute the various regions of the continent. Often the various regions include different countries than those on the map. Nothing so arbitrary should be used in template. And it is too big now, and too overcrowded with links to notes. --Monkbel 20:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree and have reverted to the old version. These templates are being phased out in favour of the international ties footers anyway. - SimonP 20:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree, let's keep the A-Z version. -- User:Docu

===>See Africa I rearranged the information on all of the continent footers because of the format of Africa's - it looks more professional and appealing than the current one, plus it includes more information on a marginally larger area. Justin (koavf) 14:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Israel

I'm surprised there isn't a poll for Israel. If we should include countries (such as Armenia) that are only in some contexts considered part of Europe, Israel must be included as well. The Israeli Olympic Committee is a member of the European Olympic Committees [22] and so the country participates in European Championships in most sports. It's also in the Eurovision Song Contest since I don't know when. -- Jao 16:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't think sport would be a very relevant criterion. Australia is going to be a member of the Asia Football Conferderation, and play in the Asian Cup. Kazahkstan plays in the European Championships, but the East Asian Games too. Did I mention Israel once played the World Cup qualifiers with countries in Oceania, and South America and Africa? — Instantnood 16:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Clutter

I've removed the clutter of the footnotes - they don't really add much, and tend to be confusing anyway, jguk 12:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

As I've said to Instantnood, I consider the use of the term "Dependency" to be POV and offensive in the Scandinavian context (see e.g. my talk page). Changed accordingly. --Valentinian 09:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I shan't revert "other territories", but I will note that we can't just go changing things willy-nilly just because someone has decided to take objection to a word that is well-used and well-understood. There's nothing remotely offensive about the word "dependency", which just defines a political state, and certainly nothing POV about it - after all, it's a term everyone uses! jguk 10:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
You have a rather interesting view on democracy. Has Jimbo granted you the right to speak for all wikipedians? As far as I know, all wikipedians are entitled to have their own opinions and argue accordingly. Or did I miss an official change in Wiki policy?
In some countries your statement would be true, not in Denmark or Finland. That qualifies for POV. Besides, the word is simply incorrect in the Scandinavian examples. The constitutional arrangements are as follows: Jan Mayen: an integral part of Norway, it's just located far from the mainland; Svalbard: Integral part of Norway, no home rule; Åland: Integral part of Finland w/ home rule; Greenland & the Faroe Islands: Integral parts of Denmark w/ internal home rule. The Constitution of Denmark does not only not mention home rule, it states that the constitution applies to all Danish territories (§1). In Danish legal tradition, that was the dinstinction between "Denmark proper" and a colony, since the consitution fid not apply in the former colonies. Norway does in fact have a few dependencies, but they're located on the southern hemisphere; territories on the the northern hemisphere are annexed to Norway proper. Same case regarding Åland vs. Finland, and Greenland & the Faroe Islands vs. Denmark. Any Scandinavian can tell you that, and other Scandinavian Wikipedians have drawn the same conclusion. Please see the talk pages of e.g. Faroe Islands, and Svalbard. In my part of the world, this issue is highly controversial and anyone using a term like e.g. "dependency" or what-ever in public debate is seen as an advocate for a return to colonialism. So whenever a politician in Denmark refers to the North Atlantic islands as anything else than fully on the same level as "Southern" Denmark, there's a public outcry in both areas. I - for one - respects my fellow countrymen and resent others offend them. But if you prefer, just kill the entire line. I've never understood the point of it anyway. --Valentinian 22:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Category redux

Currently, the template carries Category:European countries with it. This is all well and good, except that it really makes a mess of subcategorization. Many (possibly even most) of the countries listed have their own subcategories (i.e., Category:Slovakia is a subcat of Category:European countries), so placing all of these articles within the parent category is redundant and a bit messy. – Seancdaug 02:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It's generally accepted that the article (e.g. Slovakia) may be in the one it defines (e.g. Category:Slovakia) and its parent category (e.g. Category:European countries) (see Wikipedia:Categorization). Thus I'm restoring Category:European countries (see previous debate about its addition). Additional inclusion in Category:Europe is probably not needed though. -- User:Docu
I'd be curious to hear what section of the Wikipedia:Categorization page you're referring to. The creating subcategories section seems to say exactly the opposite with regards to "vertical" categorization, and the revisions currently under discussion are even more explicit. Speaking as a librarian/cataloger, I would also add that there is little practical value to having subcategories if they're not used as subcategories. We already have a flat list of European countries (this template, no less), so there's no reason that we need to duplicate that list in our categorization system, particularly when it adds to the administrative overhead (as User:Netoholic attests to below) and makes it that much more difficult to achieve consistency across articles. – Seancdaug 09:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Another thought occurred to me (and I referred to it on a note I left at Category talk:European countries): is there any reason not to drop this template in at the top of Category:European countries? While there is certainly some value to having a flat listing of European countries accessible from the main category page, I still am inclined to feel that forcing each individual article into both its parent category and its subcategory is bad practice, especially when there's not really any reason to do so (the oft-cited example of George W. Bush, for instance, is a special case because he's one of only a handful of U.S. presidents to have his own category, so it makes sense to list him both there and in the parent category; but, AFAICT, just about every European country linked on this this template has its own subcategory). Actually putting the template on the category page would keep that flat listing, but not present of the category maintenance problems auto-including Category:European countries does. – Seancdaug 10:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Using templates to populate categories is a bad practice. Anyone who does a lot of category maintenance will agree. -- Netoholic @ 07:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Abkhazia

Is a part of Europe! I don't understand why do you people keep removing it!--tasc 19:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Inserting Abkhazia, at least without a footnote explaining its circumstances, is POV. Also, if we mention Abkhazia, we'll have to mention South Ossetia, Transnistria and all the other de facto states which are officially recognised by all other EU countries (and every other country on earth) as part of another country already mentioned. --Latinus 19:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't see any notes explaining gibraltar status for example. Why note is needed? Is it not enough that it belongs to other teritories section? Transnistria is good idea, btw. --tasc 19:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
If you look at the definition of what is included in that section, it links to List of dependent territories. Gibraltar is a dependent territory, Abkhazia, Transnistria et al are de facto states that are internationally recognised as being part other European states. Create a seperate section for them if you must, but stop implying that there is a legitimate country in Europe that goes under the name Abkhazia, or worse, a dependent territory. --Latinus 19:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Cyprus, Akrotiri and Dhekelia, and the TRNC

Aren't these countries or territories geographically in Asia? I would place the footnote mark next to them, but I think it's a little too controversial to do arbitrarily. --Latinus 21:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

While Cyprus is reckoned to be a transcontinental territory, the island and constituents are approximate to the Asian mainland (with more than abundant citations of this) and, thus, appropriate to footnote as proposed. (Also, harking of UN geographic categorisations, Cyprus is included in Western Asia.) Take a glance at the table of Asian territories (and related note) for possible wording. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Sovereign_states_of_Europe/Archive_1&oldid=1124081929"