The place for this table is not here! And the enourmous note-list below it!
Even the author states "more or less independet" - this portion of the main Europe (continent) article is not about "semi-autonomous", "gurellia", etc. if Kosovo is included, then why not include Moldova-Trisapol, Northern Cyprus, etc.?? - it is about internationaly (UN?) "recognised" states...
The huge note list with details about nearly every state... that is not needed - these details are included in the states' own articles... if we start so, we should add notes like "Slovakia - one of the former Czechoslovakian republics", "France - a country known for its wine and fromage (cheese)", etc.
"San marino is microstate surrounded by Italy and strongly dependent on it" - this is not a note, suitable for this section... This is a note suitable for the San Marino and Italy articles...
The usefull info in the table (membership to some organizations) should be put into a separate article and link to this article should be put into the "Europe - See also" section (if someone thinks that he can find a more appropriate place somewhere in the article - even better).
Also, the place of this table about "EEA, EU, NATO, Euro, Shengen" is not in the main Europe article - not all european states are interacting actively with these organizations and this could be considered a POV. Why not include CIS, GUUAM and other post-soviet organizations then?
Thanks for your comments. I'll respond to them point by point.
First, about the table itself: For reasons of consolidation, I thought it would be a good idea to have one place that summarized the memberships of the most important organizations that European states belong to. Yes, this information will be available both from (a) articles about the individual states, and (b) articles about the orgnizations, but is there any other place on Wikipedia that has all this summarized in a convenient table form?
About the many notes: Not every country has a note, and the notes are not about the countries' cheeses, history, and such. The table is about independent European nations, and since there are differing degrees of being "independent" and differing degrees of being "European", I think these notes are needed for clarity and NPOV.
About the differing levels of independence: (a) A subdivision of a nation, such as a French province, is not independent. (b) Next level up: Kosovo. It is nominally not independent, but in reality the country it belongs to, Serbia, does not have influence over it. (c) Next level up: a microstate such as Liechtenstein, which is in a customs union with Switzerland, and depends on it for its defence. (d) The next step (or two) up: a fully independent state, such as Bulgaria.
Also the Europeanness of some states is controversial. For instance, are Cyprus, Turkey, or Armenia European? The answer, according to NPOV, is to make a note that differing opinions exist.
I agree with you that this table should be broken off into a separate article, such as The political geography of Europe -- especially as the main article on Europe is already getting rather long. This new article might also be the right place for the other two new tables I suggested, European nations' inhabited exclaves, dependencies, overseas provinces and territories, areas outside the EU customs union, and other anomalies and European nations' uninhabited or only temporarily inhabited overseas islands, military bases, and Antarctic territories.
The "anomalies" table might actually be a better place for Kosovo, since, as you note, it is not an internationally recognized independent state. And yes, Transdniestria (Moldova-Trisapol) and Northern Cyprus could also go in that table.
I don't see what is POV about listing memberships in organizations, and in the European Monetary Union. The memberships are simply facts, and I think the importance of the organizations I chose is general knowledge. Which doesn't preclude adding more organizations to the table, of course! After the country names and the five organizations, there's lots of horizontal room on the page for other organizations such as CIS, EFTA, Council of Europe, etc. If you feel it would be useful to list memberships of those organizations, you're welcome to add them. And/or perhaps I will, also.
I noticed that you did it already. Teemu Leisti 00:47, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There seem to be many other sections in this talk page which discuss issues touching on this table: inclusion, Europeanness, etc. I suggested in these places that discussion on these issues be consolidated here. Teemu Leisti 22:59, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
On the talk page of that article, I repeated the suggestion I made above, about creating a new article, The political geography of Europe. That page would list all the European nations, plus controversial cases, with notes, plus all the information in the above-mentioned article. If this suggestion has no other merits, at least the ever-continuing dispute on what is the exact list of European countries could be confined to a single place. Teemu Leisti 00:03, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As you see I am not against your table (on the contrary - I think that it is needed and usefull), I just think that its place is not in this article - I see that you noticed where I have moved it and you have not put it back, so I assume that now everything is fine.
about the "degree of independence" (and the related notes) - let's stick to the easy (and NPOV) way - "internationaly recognized" independence (the list as it is currently). The fine details about special autonomous or rebellion regions or about de-facto dependence on bigger neighbooring states - that is better described in the articles of the involved parities...
about the "europeaness" - it is very debatable (you can vote about it on one page's discussion - I don't remember it fully - something like "Template:EuropeCountries" (the box with list of european countries below on the pages of each country)). And becouse it is debatable - there are notes on the current "list of independent states" (I think most cases that you mention are covered, only Iceland is omitted - very few, if any, people consider it "North American" or "Atlantic". Greenland is the borderline case, but it is a dependency.). Also, on the separate page with the table -International Organizations in Europe - there are no notes about europeaness of the states, there is just a link to the "Independent states" list on the Europe page - becouse the focus of the separate page is on "membership in organizations", not "europeaness" (witch is covered here) - we should not include all info on all pages... this is too much :)
Again - your table is good and it would be nice if we can fill it more correctly - see that I have leaved some question marks (unsufficient info about them can be found on the Schengen and EEA articles and discussion pages). Also I don't consider the name of the article with the table as very good (I just can't think of any better now, but the current is not good enough).
About "europeaness debate" - my personal opinion is that the geographical borders are more or less non-debatable (Mediterranean Sea, Bosphorus, Black Sea, Caucaus watershed, Caspian Sea, Ural river/maybe Emba river/, Ural mountains, Arctic Ocean, Atlantic Ocean including Icealand/maybe also including Greenland/). The only debates are about the inclusion of Greenland into Europe (it should be anyway included "for cultural and historical reasons") and about if the Emba river should be used instead of Ural river. Both rivers are in Kazakhstan, Emba is more to the East, so we could go the "safer" way and "use" Ural. This borders give us a very non-debatable list: Iceland, UK, Ireland, Norway, Spain, Bulgaria, Greece, etc. are fully into Europe. Turkey, Russia, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Azerbaijan are paritialy into Europe (see Countries in both Europe and Asia for details). Armenia and Cyprus are in Asia (included into Europe for "cultural and historical reasons". Greenland is maybe debatable, but more likely to be included into North America. The real debate should be about another "cultural and historical"-european states - should we add-in any state (bordering current European state) of the former Russian/Roman/Ottoman Empires? Or should we stick to the tried formula "Armenia, Cyprus and maybe Greenland"?
I'll take a look at the question marks later and change the table cells according to the prevailing situation.
Yes, I agree now that the place for this table is somewhere else, and with your decision to move it to a separate article. You said you don't like the current name. I suggest again the name The political geography of Europe. In addition to the table, that article could include more information, as suggested above.
If the page International Organizations in Europe is to include only that table, then yes, the notes on Europeanness might be left out. However, with the name change and added content I suggest, I think it would be good to restore the notes.
Re the Europeanness debate: the reason for the many notes I had was to mark the countries that are only part in Europe, or disputedly partly in Europe (such as Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan), or outside geographical Europe but sometimes considered "culturally" a part of it. But as you say, they were in the original table anyway. Just for completeness's sake, I would add the note on Iceland that you took out to the table on page Europe.
I now agree with you about the internationally recognized independence, and agree that Kosovo should not be listed in the table of European states.
What do you think of these ideas?
By the way, to make it easier to see who wrote what when, can I suggest that you sign your contributions with four tildes ( ~ * 4 ), which will cause your username and the date and time to be printed, like this: Teemu Leisti 20:46, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't sign the messages, becouse currently I use a computer, where I don't want to login, type passwords, etc.
Agree with the ideas. Only disagreement - the notes about europeaness are currently on the Europe-page list. We should just link to this list Europe#Independent States and not repeat it everywhere/below every table with european countries (becouse if some newer info came out and is updated on one place - the other places will be obsolete. If we keep this list on the current place and link to it like "table xxx of the European states" - then all pages will be aways up-to-date).
About the table - similar table, but about the dependencies of european states (both dependencies located in Europe and elsewhere) would be usefull. Info can be found here Special member state territories and their relations with the EU. And the table should be placed on the same page (and remove irrelevant columns like UN, NATO, ESA, maybe CoE, OSCE - dependencies can variate only their EU, Euratom, Schengen, Euro/pegged-to-euro, etc. EU-policies, not NATO and ESA membership).
Sounds good. Let's do it that way. I might edit those articles to include the stuff I had in mind, when I get the inspiration -- in case you or somebody else doesn't want to do it. Teemu Leisti 19:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In all this defining of Europe I miss some areas, like the Mahgreb
countries which have been a part of european history for thousands
of years, and today they are associated members of EU.
They are already part of EU in many ways, like we in Sweden
were before we got full membership.
They are part of Europe without having any say in Brussels,
they are not shown on maps of Europe.
Look at the world at night, the night lights as seen from space.
You see how the industrialized Europe is a continous area
from Morocco, Portugal and Britain in the west stretching into
Siberia and central Asia in the east. That is Europe in the
industrial and economic sense. The actual european market is all
of that area, although different states have different levels of
membership in the official EU.
It is traditionally considered a continent in the West, which is more a cultural distinction than a geographic one.
and someone later deleted the phrase "in the West". As far as I know, Europe is not considered a continent by Japanese and Chinese, who distinguish a continent as a land mass (大陸) and a region of the world (洲/州). Australia and Eurasia are the former; Oceania, Asia, and Europe are the latter. I think it is nothing strange to add the phrase "in the West", though it may irritate Eurocentrists who believe Europe is accepted as a continent worldwide.
I agree. Even on Russian Wikipedia it is not called a continent. Perhaps a pole of other language wikipedias should decide this issue finally? Seabhcán 08:59, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The Russian Wikipedia it says "Europe is part of the world, and together with Asia, forms the continent 'Eurasia'" Seabhcán 09:03, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I find the point interesting in itself (that is, even if Europe was accepted as a continent, it would be pertinent to discuss the fact that it is not universal). The French article mentions the term "continent" as an abuse of language and holds Europe as "a mere part of Eurasia (Western peninsula)". It goes on to suggest that the use of this term is linked to the expressions "Old Continent" (Europe) and "New Continent" (America). Rama 09:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't believe to be that much of an Eurocentrist, but I do think that the construction "traditionally in the West considered" is harder to defend than "traditionally considered". You must remember that a statement is not necessarily interpreted as you intend to, and that the Anglophone context is, and rightfully so, taken for granted, which of course in inherently Eurocentric — and "the West" is a rather ambiguous concept. Most of all, trust Occam's Razor and keep it short when possible. --Johan Magnus 09:29, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The German article says "Europe of the westernmost fifth of the Euroasian land mass, and is usually considered as a continent of its own by Europeans"
The Spanish article says "One of the widest peninsulas of Eurasia, which considers itself a continent for historical reasons"
The Italian article and Latin article just says "continent". (I have found no evidence that they have considered the question, though)
So overall, it seems that there is a fairly wide consensus on other wikis that the term "continent" is an abuse of language with historical reasons. Rama 09:56, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I like Rama's suggestion that the issue be discussed in the article. How about a section "is Europe a continent?", with a brief synoposis of both sides of the argument. Its a valid issue, and not clear-cut. (Q. In the bible it talks about 'three land' of the world, Africa, Asia and Europe. Could this be the origin of the idea that Europe is a continent?)Seabhcán 10:17, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Iota reverted my change from continent to region. Again, in geology, there is no disagreement on the status of Europe — it is not a continent but a peninsula. Changing continent to region in this article is not bad at all even for promoters of the European continent, because region is a neutral term that can be applied to a continent. I don't deny, of course, that Europe is often called a continent in the West. However, calling it a peninsula and a continent in the same article is self-contradictory. It may be acceptable in a dictionary, such as in Dictionary.com/Europe:
The sixth-largest continent, extending west from the Dardanelles, Black Sea, and Ural Mountains. It is technically a vast peninsula of the Eurasian land mass.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and we shouldn't allow this kind of inconsistent terminology. If it is technically a peninsula, it is a peninsula. I don't edit now, to avoid edit wars. Any ideas? - TAKASUGI Shinji 01:13, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)
I would tend to think that a proper way to put it would not be The sixth-largest continent, extending west from the Dardanelles, Black Sea, and Ural Mountains. It is technically a vast peninsula of the Eurasian land mass., but A vast peninsula of the Eurasian land mass, extending west from the Dardanelles, Black Sea, and Ural Mountains. For historical reasons, it is often refered to as the sixth-largest continent. (or something like this) Rama 06:26, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Not "for historical reasons", since it begs the question what those reasons are. "It is often refferred to...." is enough. No need to apologize. Evertype 09:16, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)
How about we call it a region everywhere, except in one dedicated section where we discuss all these issues? I imagine a lot of people look up "Europe" to answer these question. What is it? Why is it called a continent when all other continents are islands? The Asia article deals with this issue with the phrase "Asia is not a continent or a subcontinent.". Seabhcán 10:32, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good. However, I don't find any reason to separate the continental Europe from the rest of the Old World. Europe as a region, including the British Isles and the Mediterranean islands, may sound valid, but it is denied not only in geology but also in various areas of study:
In linguistics: Indo-European language speakers also live in the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, Iran, and South Asia. Some Europeans don't speak those languages.
In anthropology: People genetically close to Europeans also live in the Americas, North Africa, Southwest Asia, and South Asia.
In religion: Christians also live in the Americas and the Asian part of Russia. Monotheists also live in North Africa, Southwest Asia, and Central Asia.
In biogeography: Europe is a part of the Palearctic ecozone.
It is really hard to define Europe to include the area up to the Ural. The only answer is the word usage, which is not a technical definition at all. - TAKASUGI Shinji 09:11, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
I list other sources that deny Europe as a continent here.
Personally, I'm inclined to answer these questions Yes, No, and No, giving me a list of six: North America, South America, Eurasia, Africa, Australia, and Antarctica. To my eyes at least, this half-dozen represents the world's primary distinctive land masses, as opposed to islands.
While this list is debatable, one thing clearly isn't: Europe is not a continent--at least as long as we continue to see "continent" as more or less a synonym for land mass.
CONTINENTS: (the six "As"): Africa; North America; South America; Antarctica; Australia; EurAsia
Moreover, subdividing Eurasia into Europe and the non-European region (Asia) is Eurocentric. Eurasia is more appropriately subdivided into seven regions - Europe, Southwest Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia, East Asia, Central Asia, and North Asia. Southwest Asia is clearly closer to Europe than to East Asia, and categorize them in the single Asia is meaningless.
Once Eurasia is seen as a whole, erasing the ancient but artificial and geographically meaningless division of the land mass into "Europe" and "Asia," it becomes possible to visualize the important geographical and cultural regions into which the continent is subdivided, and the trade routes that linked them together, sometimes over very extensive distances and across formidable physical barriers.
Different authorities define the borders and number of Eurasia's subregions differently. Subregional maps of Eurasia are all generally similar, however, since the subregions correspond closely to geographical realities. The major subregions are: the Intermontaine Desert and Oasis Belt; the Trans-Eurasian Steppe Belt; China; the Mediterranean; the Middle East; South Asia; Northeast Asia; Northern Europe; Mainland Southeast Asia; Island Southeast Asia; the Boreal Forest; and the Arctic Littoral.
the major regions of Eurasia (East Asia, South Asia, West Asia and Europe)
Websites of U.S. Embassies and Consulates lists six world regions: Africa, the Americas, East Asia and Pacific, Europe and the former USSR, Middle East and North Africa, and South Asia.
OK, Takasugi-san, you seem to have a real bee in your bonnet about this. Is it the Wikipedia's job to teach readers of this article that "Europe is not a continent"? That seems to be what you are interested in. Evertype 21:35, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
I was interested in not calling Europe a continent, and showed the fact that geologists and many historians think it is not a continent as proof. However, Wikipedia is everyone's encyclopedia, not necessarily an academic one. If you believe I have a real bee in my bonnet instead of facts, leave the article as it is. - TAKASUGI Shinji 00:51, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
Huh ? I don't understand you, Evertype. What purpose for an encyclopedia, if not to educate people ? On this particular subject, TAKASUGI Shinji is right (or so do I and many other editors feel), so his desire to have his point accurately integrated in the article seems very legitimate to me. Mind that this article in about Europe in general, not Eruope as a political or historical entity. Rama 05:43, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There's an edit war going on on whether to include National Geographic Society as an authority to define Europe as a continent. (I'm not involved in this war.) As far as I have checked, they always use Europe for the European region, including the British Isles. So they can't be an authority for the European continent (large land mass excluding surrounding islands). - TAKASUGI Shinji 05:11, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
Europe and asia are definatly seperate continents. They are the only continents defined culturally. They are not one continent. All the books say so and it is just the accepted norm. If we are going to define continents utterly geographically then the article on north America should include eastern Siberia and Japan as being part of N.America and other wacky things which are true when defining continents geographically but are not the accepted norm - Josquius
Thanks for that, but we're not talking about Tectonic plates here. Europe and Asia are defined as seperate continents only in western Europe and North America and only then in non-scientific books. Scientists world wide define them as parts of a Eurasian continent. Even in non-scentific writings outside of the cultural 'west' Europe is never called a continent.
The ultimate proof is go stand in the Ural mountains, look east, look west, and try and find the continental boundary. I've been there, and you know, I couldn't see it. If Europe is a 'cultural continent' then so are India and China, and anyway the Ural mountains isn't a sensable boundary for a European 'cultural continent'. Seabhcán 16:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Eurasia has a more detailed discussion of the continent question, and is linked from the first sentence of Europe. The Europe as continent POV can't go away entirely because it's historically important and people will ask about it.--JWB 19:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The population of Europe
The population of Europe is wrong at 799 million. Area shown green on a map in this article witch is geographically part of Europe stands at about 680 million. The number of 799 million is probably meant if Europe includes whole Turkey and Caucasian countries, witch it does not. Calculate it for yourself!
Totaly agree, If you have already checked the numbers - correct the page please. Maybe the area calculation is similary wrong - including/excluding the whole Turkey and/or Russia.Alinor 10:25, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Don't know the exact population, but i calculated manually and came to about 680-700 mil. I know for a fact that europe geographically includes european part of russia to the Ural mountains. Russia's popualtion is 1/3 in Asain part and 2/3 in Eruopean part witch means the european part is about 100 million. Turkey is NOT geographically part of eruope exept that small European part. I would still perfer if someone with the exact population would edit the page and correct it, since mine is quite approximate.
I calculated the total population and corrected the figure. I included the european part of Russia (the population of which I calculated to be about 111,8 million) and the caucasian coutries but excluded Turkey.--Lumijaguaari 03:19, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This needs changing on the Europe Wikiportal when it gets changed in this article, otherwise we get inconsistency.
I'll also add "roughly" to the above number, because it could easily be off by 10-20 million either way from calculating percentages of the russian population alone. And then you haven't yet accounted for the fact that census numbers from other countries are not necessarily 100% correct or up to date. Because you can't: population numers are rarely precise. --Daniel
European spelling, please
Takasugi Shinji just did a major revision changing "continent" to "region" and "Europe" and other things, which is fine. But packed into these edits were changes of colour to color. I think that the article on Europe ought to favour English English spelling, and so the US spellings should be reverted. Evertype 11:22, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)
National Geographic Society
The National Geographic Society is the largest nonprofit scientific and educational institution in the world. It is an organization specifically created ‘to increase and diffuse geographic knowledge." The position of a major geographic society is clearly germane to the subject of whether or not Europe is considered a continent. The excised quote was not saying that the society was correct. It's merely stating that is their position.
("as such" -> because there is no clear distinction between Europe and Asia).
I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but I would like to size the opportunity to underline the naivety of this. A significant proportion of European nations are transcontinental nations because of their empirial past (For imstance, France is part of organisations of American countries (because of her possessions of Guadeloupe, Guyanne, Martinique), and has possessions in the Pacific and Indian Ocean. Similarly, the United Kingdom remains an "Empire on which the sun never sets", etc.) Rama 06:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Semi-autonomous areas
Removed Jan Mayen and Svalbard, as they are neither culturally "defined" nor autonomous (Jan Mayen has a population of less than 20!). Somebody should probably do the same with the British army bases, I do not know enough about them. IMO, only the Faroes and Gibraltar belong here, plus possibly, and only possibly, the Channel Islands. Oh, and Kosovo. Jørgen09:45, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The British dependencies are highly autonomous (They are not part of the UK, but separately ruled by the Queen, with the London government handling only defence and foriegn relations) and very culturally different from the each other and from the UK, and thus should be included. However, we should make a distinction between autonomous regions of a centralised nation, and the states of a federation, such as Germany, Italy, Russia, Switzerland, etc. In the case of the UK, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (which have local parliaments) could be described as autonomous regions or members of a federation, depending on your point of view.
In the case of Serbia, if we include Kosovo, do we include Vojvodina or Montenegro? In Moldovia, do we include the de facto autonomous region of Transnistria, which broke off without agreement, or just the agreed autonomous region of Gagauzia? And how about the complex situation of Permyakia, which is an autonomous region of Perm Oblast, which is itself a state within the Russian Federation?
This is an extremely complex issue and is perhaps not best served by having a list such as the one in this article. Seabhcán13:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean, but I disagree. I think a list of (semi-)autonomous areas is OK, though a heading saying that the territories are "culturally and geographically defined" is perhaps unnecessary. The main argument to include something other than independent states should be some degree of autonomy, not as "separate rule from above" (that is simply a different kind of subdivision within countries, like the fact that Svalbard is not part of any county of Norway, but directly ruled from Oslo) but as autonomy for those actually living there. Perhaps some degree of independent foreign policy would be a good indicator?
To go through your examples:
Federations or unions of separate entities, such as the UK, Germany or Serbia-Montenegro, are defined entities that are, beyond dispute, complete states. I do not think that we would disagree on this (if you remove Montenegro from Serbia-Montenegro, it is not the same state anymore, is it?). A similar argument would go for Russia, which is an advanced system of oblasts, republics and I don't know what.
Vojvodina, though ethnically slightly different, is still a part of Serbia?
Kosovo, while still a part of Serbia (and thereby a part of Serbia-Montenegro) is de facto ruled by the UN; Serbia has no authority there. That was the argument for including it. The situation of the area is largely unresolved and it is considered unlikely that it will become a "normal" part of Serbia again.
An inclusion of Transnistria would be OK for me, the difference from other entities is that it is not internationally recognised, and is unlikely to be.
The Faroe Islands, in contrast, is not a member of the EU (as Denmark is), leads an independent domestic policy, is internationally recognised, has its own language and culture, and could vote for secession from Denmark any time it wanted (only it doesn't, because it would lose too much subsidies) (POV warning)
There is possibly a discussion on this somewhere on a "list of sub-national entities" or something, perhaps it is better discussed there. The list could go for me. My point was just that including foreign army bases would make it too long and uninformative.
I think the problem lies in the word "Dependencies", which strictly applies only to the Crown Terrorites of Britian (Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey and Gibralter) and possibly Faroe. As soon as you get into phrases like "semi-autonomous" you start to pick apart the large countries into their base federal units. The German Bundesländer have a very high degree of autonomy, for example.
Its probably better to have a short discussion of sub-national entities with a link to a full list. Or else remove the section completely.
The Race section is almost entirely lifted from http://www.racialcompact.com/nordishrace.html, a site advocating racial segregation. "Nordish" is also a neologism only used by McCulloch and followers. The detailed racial classification given is based on Carleton Coon's "The Races of Europe".--JWB 03:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I removed the whole section pending aggreement and discussion of copyvios. After a quick glance through it, it sounds like patent nonsense. There is no such word as 'Keltic', try Celtic. 'Brünn' redirects to Brno, the city in Czech Republic. The section states that "John Kennedy (is) of the Brünn". Now, Kennedy came from an Irish family originating in Wexford. What on earth Brno has to do with anything is beyond me. "In England, Scotland and Ireland the incidence of blond hair is much higher in the east than in the west, in Germany it is much higher in the north than in the south." What? Is it saying that people in Dublin have blond hair and people in Galway have dark? Nonsense! Seabhcán 08:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if it violates copyright (McCulloch might be glad to get his fringe opinions into a mainstream publication, and Coon is old enough that copyright may be expired) but the POV represented is scientifically discredited, and repugnant to most. Mentioning racist POVs as existing in addition to mainstream ones might be OK for completeness or balance, but giving it most of the space in the section and having it appear as unquestioned scientific fact is not.--JWB 15:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
<Begin removed material from www.nordish.com>
Race and physical appearance
There are three main regional racial groupings in Europe. The southern region (Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece) is a racial clinal zone (a border area where different races meet and intermix) where the Mediterranean racial group -- which inhabits southwest Asia (the "Middle East") and northern Africa as well as southern Europe -- has long intermixed with invaders from the northern areas of Europe. In this southern European "melting pot" -- which has dissolved many peoples into its solution -- the Mediterranids, in various local types, are generally dominant, having assimilated most of the other elements with which they have been hybridized, although some remnants of the other elements still survive.
The northern region is inhabited by the Nordish racial group ("Nord" being the word for north in both French and German). The latter can be divided into two subgroups: an Inner or Central subgroup consisting of the Nordic, Borreby, Brünn, Fälish, Trønder and Anglo-Saxon subraces and subtypes of the British Isles, Scandinavia, northern Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium; and an Outer or Periphery subgroup, which includes the Atlantid subtypes of the British Isles, and the Noric, East Baltic and Neo-Danubian subtypes which predominate in northern France, southern Germany, Switzerland, Austria, the Czech Republic, Finland, the Baltic States, Poland and northwestern Russia. These last inhabit the racial clinal zone between the Central Nordish and Alpine racial groups, and are intermediate types resulting from hybridization or intermixture between these two groups, with the Nordish element being generally more numerous and predominant. The term Nordish is here used to refer to the indigenous peoples of northern Europe as a whole, including both Central and Periphery types, and also those peoples in North America, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and elsewhere whose ancestors were of Northern European racial origin.
Although this system of classification is too simple to be completely accurate, and certainly too simple to be regarded as complete, it is tolerably accurate in identifying those European population groups which have a sufficient degree of genetic similarity and compatibility that they can interbreed more or less freely within the group without negating -- or significantly altering or disrupting -- their unique and distinctive ensembles of genetic characteristics. These racial groups can therefore be defined as races. Consequently, although these races can be further subdivided into a richly diverse variety of subraces and subtypes, the racial level of classification will be regarded as sufficient for most discussions in this work. A more detailed description of the subdivisions -- subraces and subtypes -- of the Nordish race is given in the outline below, followed by a listing of the countries of Europe showing the distribution of the different European racial types. For a more detailed outline of the Mediterranean, Alpine and other racial groups see The Races of Humanity .
The Nordish race, like many others, can be conceived as a series of concentric circles, with the innermost circle, the racial core or navel, consisting of the most distinct and definitive subracial types, in relation to which, in degrees of closeness or distance, the subracial types of the outer circles are defined. The racial outline given below is based on this principle. Some of the names are derived from archaeological sites where early examples of the types were found, others are based on geographical regions with which the types are associated.
Nordish or Northern European Race
1. Inner Circle of Core or Central Subracial Types
a. Aboriginal Northwest European subraces (The descendants of the first peoples to settle in northern Europe after the retreat of the glaciers, at the end of the last ice age, during the Upper Paleolithic period circa 8,000 B.C.)
1.) Borreby subrace (named after Danish island site where paleolithic remains were found; principal element in Denmark, southwest coast of Sweden, northern Germany, the Rhineland and the Ruhr, majority element in Wallonia)
2.) Brünn subrace (named after paleolithic site near Brno, or Brünn, Czech Republic; predominant element in western Ireland)
b. Nordic or Nordid subrace (The modern Nordic subrace is descended from the proto-Nordic Danubian neolithic farmers of the Danube valley whose expansion into northwest Europe circa 3,500 B.C. is probably associated with the spread of neolithic agriculture and the Indo-European language.)
1.) Hallstatt or Österdal type (named after Austrian site where remains were found and Norwegian valley near Oslo; predominant element in Sweden and southeastern Norway, common in Denmark, western Finland, eastern England and northern Germany)
2.) Keltic type (predominant element in Flanders, majority in the Netherlands and northern and western Switzerland, primary element in England, eastern Scotland and old Frankish country in southwest Germany, common in Wales and Ireland; ancient Franks and northern Kelts were of this type)
c. Blended types of above subraces
1.) Anglo-Saxon or Old Germanic Reihengräber type (Nordic- Brünn blend; predominant element in the Dutch province of Friesland (Frisia) and the Dutch and German Frisian Islands, common in southeast England and northwest Germany)
2.) Trønder type (Brünn-Nordic blend; predominant element in Trøndelagen area of western Norway [whence the name] and Iceland, common in northeast England and Scotland)
3.) Fälish, Dalofalid or Dalo-Nordic type (Nordic-Borreby blend; names from Fälen [German for "plain"] and Dalarna region of Sweden (Kopparberg); primary element on the north German plain, Jutland and the Swedish province of Kopparberg)
2. Outer Circle of Periphery Subracial Types
a. Northwestern periphery types (ancient stabilized blends of Inner Circle or Central Nordish inhabitants of northwestern Europe with Mesolithic Atlanto-Mediterranean immigrants)
1.) North-Atlantid type (associated with megalithic monuments and long barrow burial sites; primary element in Wales, southeast coast of Ireland and western Scotland, common in England; in coloring combines dark hair with usually light eyes)
2.) Palaeo-Atlantid type (common in Wales and in western England and Scotland from the Midlands to Glasgow, minor element in Norway; hair and eye coloring both dark)
b. Southern and Eastern periphery types (ancient stabilized blends of Inner Circle Nordish types with neighboring Caucasoid races)
1.) Neo-Danubian type (eastern periphery blend of original Danubian proto-Nordic with Ladogan, with the Danubian element dominant; majority element in Poland and Belorussia, primary element in Hungary, west Ukraine and northwest Russia, important in Finland and the Baltic States)
2.) East Baltic type (northeast periphery blend of Borreby and/or Fälish with Neo-Danubian and/or Ladogan; majority element in Finland and the Baltic States, formerly predominant in Old Prussia, but this element now dispersed throughout Germany as a result of the post-war expulsion of the Prussian population from its ancestral homeland)
3.) Noric or Sub-Nordic type (southern periphery blend of Nordic with Alpine and/or Dinaric, with the Nordic element dominant; principal element in northern France, important element in central Germany and Austria, common in Transylvania and western Ukraine, minor in British Isles)
Dominant or predominant = over 60% majority
Majority or major = 50-60% majority
Principal or primary = 25-49% plurality; less than a majority, but most numerous racial type
Important = 25-49% minority; not most numerous racial type
Common = 5-25% minority
Minor = less than 5% minority
There is regional variation within the types, forming local subtypes and varieties. Of the three central Nordish subraces, the Borrebys and Brünns tend to have somewhat larger heads, broader features and heavier body builds than the Nordics. In height they are essentially the same. Of American presidents in this century Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and George Bush are good examples of the Nordic subrace, Theodore Roosevelt and Gerald Ford of the Borreby, and John Kennedy of the Brünn. The Palaeo-Atlantids are typically dark-eyed (brown or dark-mixed, the latter a mixture of brown with blue or green). The other Nordish types are predominantly light-eyed (blue, gray, green or light-mixed). Light-mixed eyes (a mixture of blue and green) are particularly common in the Nordic subrace. The two Atlantid types are dark haired. Among the other types hair color is variable from very dark to very light, with the light and medium brown shades generally the most common among adults. Hair color is lightest among children, and usually darkens with age. Among adults the incidence of blond hair varies, from lows of 13-15% in the Walloon Borrebys and the Irish Brünns, to highs of over 50% among the Hallstatt Nordic, Trønder, Borreby and Fälish peoples of Scandinavia, the Anglo-Saxons of Frisia, and the East Baltics of Finland. In England, Scotland and Ireland the incidence of blond hair is much higher in the east than in the west, in Germany it is much higher in the north than in the south. As a rule, the higher the incidence of blond hair the higher also is the proportion of the light blond shades to the dark blond. Red hair is common in the Brünn and Borreby stems (and in those of partial Brünn or Borreby derivation), minimal in the Nordic. For reference, an estimate of the distribution of racial types in the indigenous European populations is given below.
Estimated Racial Composition and Nordish Percentage of Indigenous European Populations:
Sweden = 70% Hallstatt Nordic (Carleton Coon described Sweden as a refuge area for the classic Nordic race), 10% Borreby (most common in the southwest coastal region), 10% Fälish (most common in Dalarna [Kopparberg] and the southwest coastal region), 5% Trønder (most common near the central Norwegian border), 5% East Baltic = 100% Nordish (95% central and 5% periphery types)
Norway = 45% Trønder (most common in the west), 30% Hallstatt Nordic (most common in the southeast area around Oslo), 10% Borreby (most common in the southwest), 7% Fälish (most common in the south), 5% East Baltic (most common in the far north), 3% Palaeo-Atlantid (found in western coastal areas) = 100% Nordish (92% central and 8% periphery types)
Denmark = 40% Borreby, 30% Fälish, 20% Hallstatt Nordic, 5% Anglo-Saxon, 5% East Baltic = 100% Nordish (95% central and 5% periphery types)
Iceland = 60% Trønder, 22% Borreby, 15% Brünn, 3% Palaeo-Atlantid = 100% Nordish (97% central and 3% periphery types)
England = 30% Keltic Nordic (derived from pre-Roman Iron Age invaders), 20% Anglo-Saxon (post-Roman Germanic invaders, most common in the southeast, especially East Anglia), 15% North-Atlantid and 10% Palaeo-Atlantid (blend of Mesolithic Atlanto-Mediterranean invaders with both earlier and later arrivals; most common in the Midlands and northwest), 8% Hallstatt Nordic (of Viking and Norman derivation), 5% Brünn, 5% Trønder (of Norwegian Viking derivation; most common in the northeast), 3% Borreby and 2% Fälish (both of Viking and Norman derivation; associated with the landed gentry; source of the "John Bull" type), 2% Noric (from Bronze-Age invaders) = 100% Nordish (73% central and 27% periphery types)
Scotland = 30% Keltic Nordic, 22% Trønder (most common in the northeast), 10% North-Atlantid (most common in the west), 10% Anglo-Saxon (most common in the southeast), 10% Palaeo-Atlantid (most common in the southwest), 5% Brünn, 5% Hallstatt Nordic, 4% Borreby, 4% Noric = 100% Nordish (76% central and 24% periphery types)
Ireland = 40% Brünn (indigenous Paleolithic inhabitants, most common in the west), 30% Keltic Nordic (most common in the east), 9% North-Atlantid, 9% Borreby, 3% Palaeo-Atlantid, 3% Trønder, 2% Noric, 2% Anglo-Saxon, 1% Hallstatt Nordic = 100% Nordish (86% central and 14% periphery types)
Wales = 35% North-Atlantid, 30% Palaeo-Atlantid, 30% Keltic Nordic, 5% other types = 100% Nordish (35% central and 65% periphery types)
The Netherlands = 50% Keltic Nordic (of Frankish derivation), 20% Borreby, 10% Anglo-Saxon (most common in Frisia), 10% Fälish, 10% Hallstatt Nordic = 100% Central Nordish
Belgium = 60% Keltic Nordic (most common in Flanders, derived from the ancient Belgae and Franks), 35% Borreby and 5% Alpine (both most common in Wallonia) = 95% Central Nordish
Luxembourg = 80% Alpine, 15% Borreby, 5% other Nordish types = 20% Central Nordish
Germany = 25% Borreby (most common in the Rhine and Ruhr valleys and the north), 20% Fälish (most common in the north), 15% Alpine (most common in Baden and Bavaria), 15% Noric, 6% Keltic Nordic (most common in the old Frankish country in the southwest), 5% Anglo-Saxon (most common in the northwest), 5% East Baltic, 5% Dinaric, 4% Hallstatt Nordic = 80% Nordish (60% central and 20% periphery types)
France = 30% Alpine, 30% Noric (most common in the north), 20% Mediterranean (most common in the south and Corsica), 15% Dinaric, 3% Borreby (in the northeast), 2% Nordic = 35% Nordish (5% central and 30% periphery types)
Switzerland = 40% Keltic Nordic and 30% Noric (most common in the north, west and center), 15% Dinaric and 15% Alpine (most common in the south and east) = 70% Nordish (40% central and 30% periphery types)
Austria = 35% Noric, 25% Dinaric, 20% Alpine, 15% Keltic Nordic, 5% Hallstatt Nordic = 55% Nordish (20% central and 35% periphery types)
Poland = 55% Neo-Danubian, 10% Ladogan, 10% Alpine, 10% Dinaric, 5% Hallstatt Nordic, 5% Noric, 5% East Baltic = 70% Nordish (5% central and 65% periphery types)
Finland and the Baltic States = 50% East Baltic, 15% Hallstatt Nordic (most common in the Swedish-settled areas of Finland), 30% Neo-Danubian (most common in southeast Lithuania and northeast Finland), 5% Ladogan = 95% Nordish (15% central and 80% periphery types)
The Czech Republic and Slovakia = 40% Alpine and 15% Noric (most common in Bohemia), 25% Dinaric (most common in Moravia), 20% Neo-Danubian (most common in Slovakia) = 35% Periphery Nordish
Hungary = 35% Neo-Danubian (most common in the northeast), 25% Turanid (of Magyar derivation), 20% Dinaric (most common in the southwest), 15% Alpine (most common in the south), 2% Nordic, 2% Noric, 1% East Mediterranean = 39% Nordish (2% central and 37% periphery types)
Russia, Belorussia and Ukraine = 40% Neo-Danubian (most common in Belorussia and western Ukraine), 35% Ladogan, 8% Nordic, 7% East Mediterranean (most common near the Black Sea coast), 5% Dinaric (most common in eastern Ukraine), 5% Noric = 53% Nordish (8% central and 45% periphery types)
Spain and Portugal = 85% West Mediterranean, 9% South Mediterranean, 5% Dinaric, 1% Nordic (most common in the remnants of the Visigoth aristocracy) = 1% Central Nordish
Italy = 50% Dinaricized Mediterranean (most common in the south and Sicily), 20% Dinaric (most common in the north), 15% Alpine (most common in the northwest), 10% West Mediterranean (most common in Sardinia), 4% Noric (most common in the north, 1% Nordic (most common in the remnants of the Ostrogoth and Lombard aristocracy) = 5% Nordish (1% central and 4% periphery types). Italy, much like the other southern European countries of the Mediterranean region -- Spain, Portugal and
Greece -- experienced several waves of Nordish invasions during ancient and early Medieval times, from the Danubians (circa 2,000-1,500 B.C.), who brought the Indo-European language that developed into Latin, and the Kelts (beginning circa 500 B.C.), to the Germanic Ostrogoths and Lombards (A.D. 400-700). These Nordish elements have been gradually assimilated into the majority Mediterranean population, but some of their genetic traits, existing in solution, occasionally recombine to appear in individuals whose other traits are mostly non-Nordish.
Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, Slovenia and Macedonia = 75% Dinaric, 10% West Mediterranean (most common on the coast), 10% Noric and 5% Neo-Danubian (most common in the north) = 15% periphery Nordish types
Romania = 35% Dinaric (most common in the west), 25% East Mediterranean (most common on the coast), 20% Neo-Danubian (most common in the northeast), 10% Alpine, 7% Noric and 3% Nordic (most common in the west) = 30% Nordish (3% central and 27% periphery types)
Greece = 40% East Mediterranean, 25% Dinaricized Mediterranean, 20% Alpine (most common in Epirus), 10% Dinaric, 5% Nordish (partly assimilated remnant, or genetic recombinations from solution, of various past Nordish invaders, mostly of Danubian type, going back to the ancient Achaeans and Dorians; most common in the north)
<End of removed www.nordish.com material>
<Following paragraph was not from www.nordish.com>
Modern research on Y chromosome and mtdna show that Europeans originate from a number of historical groups,eg Middle Eastern farmer,central asian nomads and Paleolithic hunters.The least diverse of Europeans population are the Irish and Basques, while the "Nordic race" are one of the most diverse,in fact Norwegians share many markers with the people of Altai in Siberia.
<End removed Race section>
Race in Wikipedia articles
Whilst that article that has been deleted is unnaceptable for several reasons, it is also completely unnaceptable that the article on Europe does not have any section on 'Race' while the article on Africa does have such a section.
Perhaps someone should seed a 'Race' section in the Europe article which can then be carefully expanded on incrementally?
The mere term of "race" is very shocking to me, and probably to others; it is also a sort of language which is forbidden by law in several European countries. If it is deemed necessary to have similar discussions, they could be at least use a less shocking terminology, such as "ethnicity" or something less racist. That applies to all articles of course. Rama 16:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If someone can define the word 'race' in a consistant and logical way, I'll be happy to support a section on race. The problem is that the entire concept that people can divided up neatly into races is nonsense - as is obvious from the gibberish I removed to above. The only logical and scientific thing which can said about race is that people in the southern sunny countries tend to be darker skinned, and this is such an obvious and boring statement that it doesn't deserve to be in the article. All other differences between people are down to culture and nationality.
The race section in Africa article seems to be more about history and migration than anything else. Seabhcán 17:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Horses and donkeys are not in the same race, they can mate and can get offspring, but the offspring will be sterile, cannot get living offspring.
All human ethnic groups can mate and get children who can get children,
so all humans are part of the same race.
If somebody would like to write about differences between people he should use words like "genetical differences", but not the word race.
Yes, typically people from the USA tend to distinguish the so-called "races" "White" and "Hispanic", something which would make any European, including the most racist of them, stare at you blankly. That pretty much invalidates the notion of objectively defined human "races". Rama 17:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
One possible reason is that the "Race Question" is very different in different parts of Europe. It's probably better tackled in individual countries. DJ Clayworth 17:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I see Seabhcán changed the Race section in Africa to Demographics. Europe could have a Demographics section with Demographics of the European Union as main article. ("Demographics of X" seems to be a Wikipedia title convention, but in this case Demographics of Europe is a smaller stub.
I'm curious why the anonymous poster at top of section thinks Europe has to have a Race section if Africa does. I agree with Rama etc. that current European attitudes seem to consider discussion of native racial differences within Europe to be old-fashioned and a waste of time if not actually harmful. There are probably more Americans concerned with it. It's interesting that the nordish.com Race section which was cut was written by an American and uses only American Presidents as example individuals.
The question is this; is Europe a continent populated by one type of person, and Africa is not, or are the continets of Africa and Europe both populated by different types of people that can be identified by their 'Race and physical appearance'?
If anyone claims that Europe contains a homogenous population, then Africa too has just such a population, and niether article should have a 'Race and physical appearance' section.
Interesting how "discussion of native racial differences within Europe to be old-fashioned and a waste of time if not actually harmful." But when talking about Africans this is OK? Because of what exactly?
Anyway, the section is gone, as it should be, from both articles now. Lets see how it develops.
Well, I'm European (British/Greek), and I want to see the demographics of Europe written about. Just because it's controversial, doesn't mean it shouldn't be (cautiously) approached. Handling it on a country-by-country basis is a poor solution because it ignores the big pictures of migration, conquest, etc. Of course, the initial entry was both simplistic, innacurate and politically motivated; I won't argue against that. --Spudtater13:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
thats because greeks are rasict, just look at prince philip :P nahh just kidding. But race really isn't a helpful concept when discussing europe from within europe. We need to understand cultural and linguistic differences between Europeans far more than we need to understand racial differences.
What is this nonesense?
A country is either in Europe or it is debatable. For a country to be included in Europe, it should have 50% + 1 of its border on what is considered as Europe.
The template of European countries is against Wikipedias NPOV and neutral concept, because it present a debatable position as a fact. The template should only include those nations that their "Europeness" (geographically, and NOT culturally(because this is debatable)) is clear cut and not debatable. We can not present names of countries and dump them in Europe as if it was more than just a position, when the country is even not included in Europe in most encyclopedias and maps. My Larousse doesn't say Turkey in Europe, doesn't say Georgia, neither Azerbaijan or Armenia in Europe. Universalis the World biggest French language encyclopedia(I have the 6 CD collection, and which take over 4 GB of hard disk space), doesn't say either.
Members voting here does not apply, why not passing a vote to determine if Earth is flat? Members voting is only useful regarding how an article is writen and not what is a fact... because Wikipedia is not about facts but presenting positions and in this regard, I find country inclusions as facts and the template against Wikipedia and as a Wikipedian expect the Wikipedian principles to be respected. Fadix 22:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A gif from MapQuest.com and from a Hong Kong travel site is hardly authoritative. I worked on a CEN/ISSS technical committee report on the languages of Europe, and we had to come up with a geopolitical definition. That is, there is a "sense" of what geography covers Europe, and then there is a set of administrative units of various sizes which fit to it. I guess I will repeat that material here. Georgia, by the way, is considering membership in the EU, and good luck to them. I don't see why "Europe" wouldn't include Transcaucasia. Evertype 16:03, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
A geopolitical definition of Europe
Since "Europe" is a geographic place and a collection of political and cultural entities, I propose to repeat the following definition, which should, I suggest, be adopted as a "definition" that makes sense for the Wikipedia. Meaning that if we adopt it, we don't have to keep fighting about this issue.
The Alphabets of Europe uses the following geographical and geophysical definition of Europe:
“Europe” extends from the Arctic and Atlantic (including Iceland and the Faroe Islands) southeastwards to the Mediterranean (including Malta and Cyprus), with its eastern and southern borders being the Ural Mountains, the Ural River, the Caspian Sea, and Anatolia, inclusive of Transcaucasia.
The Alphabets of Europe report also includes languages found in the following areas:
Anatolian Turkey, Greenland
Information concerning the administrative units covered by this geographical definition can be found below. It is important to note that the Alphabets of Europe is a geolinguistic survey. It is not a political survey. The area defined here may be seen on page xiv, “Geographical Comparisons”, in The Times Atlas of the World: comprehensive edition, 1990 (ISBN 0-7230-0346-7).
The following list enumerates the administrative units corresponding to the geographical definition of Europe above. This list was valid at the time of its compilation (1995-03-01). Spelling of entity names follows that given in ISO 3166-3.
The following countries and self-governing dependencies: Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan (including the autonomous republic of Naxçivan), Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Hercegovina, Bulgaria, the Channel Islands, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, the Faroe Islands, Finland (including Åland), France, Georgia (including the autonomous republics of Abkhazia and Ajaria and the Autonomous Region of South Ossetia), Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey (excluding Anatolia), Ukraine, the United Kingdom, the Vatican City, Yugoslavia (Crna Gora, Srbija, Kosovo-Metohija, and Vojvodina).
The following Republics in the Russian Federation: Adygea, Baškortostan, Čečenija, Čuvašija, Dagestan, Ingušetija, Kabardino-Balkarija, Kalmykija, Karačaj-Čerkesija, Karelija, Komi, Mari-El, [Mordvinija,] Severnaja Osetija, Tatarstan, Udmurtija.
The following oblasts in the Russian Federation: Arkhangelˊsk (including the Nenets Autonomous Okrug), Astrahanˊ, Belgorod, Brjansk, Ivanovo, Jaroslavlˊ, Kaliningrad, Kaluga, Kirov, Kostroma, Kursk, Leningrad, Lipetsk, Moskva, Murmansk, Nižnij Novgorod, Novgorod, Orël, Orenburg, Penza, Permˊ (including the Komi-Permjak Autonomous Okrug), Pskov, Rostov, Ryazanˊ, Samara, Saratov, Smolensk, Tambov, Tula, Tverˊ, Ulˊjanovsk, Vladimir, Volgograd, Vologda, Voronež.
The following krais in the Russian Federation: Krasnodar, Stavropolˊ.
This list is inclusive, not arbitrary, and was certainly a reasonable way to enable us to accomplish our task in the Alphabets of Europe project. I commend it to the Wikipedia for our article on "Europe". Evertype 16:43, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
This is not NPOV,... you can not present a position as truth, it is POV. The position that neither Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia are not considered to be in Europe is a very stronger position, and from what I have read, they are stronger than the position that they are geographically part of Europe. The term "culturally" is open to interpretation. I consider Universalis or other such very credible encyclopedias as very credible. Articles should not be based on what one believes to be the truth, but to simply present positions, and in that regard an alphabet of countries of Europe, or a list presented in the entry of such countries is simply POV. Fadix 03:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree, surely the most accurate means of description is to acknowledge 'Europe' as a human construct, and indeed acknowledge the complications of defining what a continent is in general and specifically in this case. There should be more than the one viewpoint displayed as there is no definite definition of what this continent consists of. It could be sugested that all continental definitions, even geological definitions of a continent are arbitary human constructs without any 'innate truth to nature'. Perhaps there should be a greater deal of fluidity of what these continental boundries consist of and as such what constitutes 'Europe'. Gazzapedia
Truth, Fadix? There is no "truth". What goes into "Europe" is a matter of choice and definition. Anatolia is not part of Europe; everyone agrees that. A part of Turkey is in Europe. And with regard to Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, the question is whether Europe includes Transcaucasia or not. I believe it ought to. Others may not believe it does. There is no NPOV, but what one can do is to give a definition of what one considers to be Europe. The Alphabets of Europe project had to do this, and we found the definition above to be useful. I propose that we adopt such a definition for the Wikipedia. That will forestall further argument. If we don't, then we're going to have to go over this again and again and again. Georgia, by the way, has said that it wishes to join NATO and the European Union.
Doesn't make much sense. It is not the job of Wikipedia to say what's what. Wikipedia is not a theses where the author takes position. Wikipedia simply present what is said about things and by whom. That the position that neither Turkey, nor Armenia, nor Azerbaijan, nor Georgia are part of Europe geographically, exist there is no doubt about that. Why would Wikipedia take position, when it is not it's job, in fact, it is even unwiki to take such a position. That Georgia has asked to be a part of the European Union doesn't make of the claim, that Georgia is part of Europe as a certainty. Only in mathematical concepts sometimes Wikipedia can limit to saying that's that. Afteral 1 + 1 really equal 2, and this undisputably. Fadix 17:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
the new list of unilateraly declared independent territories
to Codecs Sinaiticus:
In the version of this list that you support there are both territories located in Europe and such located in Asia (but part of paritialy european countries or of Cyprus/Armenia that are entierly asian territorialy) - Nagorno Karabakh, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. At the same time you insist that Kurdistan should be excluded, becouse it is in Asia...
In the version that you support are included both territories that have DE-FACTO ACHIEVED SELF-RULE (or at least rule by the presently strong elites) and such that MAY BE classified as "declared independence" (but that is debatable...) Anyway, again, not all such territories are included - Kurdistan, N.Ireland, etc.
The situation with established authorities of N.Cyprus, Nagorno Karabakh, Tranisitria, South Ossetia and Abkhazia (all clearly de-facto self ruling) is clearly much different that the situation with the "rebels", "independence fighters" or "terrorists" in Chechnya, N.Ireland, Basque, etc.
Also, I think that the wording of your version is more vague and the other vesion is better formulated (and thus limiting the regions to be included to realy self-ruling regions and not every place where some person/group has declared to be independent of the host state)
New Macedonia¤-related poll
It has been proposed that uses of terms Macedonia¤, Macedonian¤, and Macedonians¤ in articles mentioning the Republic of Macedonia¤ should be accompanied with the following disclaimer:
I don't have the power to change the colors on the map,
but the color of France, Belgium and Holland is wrong.
These countries have been a part of central Europe
for 2000 years, politically, economically and culturally.
They should be light blue like the rest of central Europe.
That Great Britain has another color than continental Europe
is in order, it has its own history.
The rest of the map is okay with me. (Roger J.)
The whole section "Regions of Europe" should be deleted.
It is written without real knowledge of Europe.
There are real regions in europe, like central europe, france,
germany, poland, benelux, tjeckoslovakia, hungary, austria.
the mediterrainan world, spain, portugal, italy, greece,
turkey, and the french riviera.
The scandinavian and baltic region.
great britain is a region by itself,for historical
reasons, it was a superpower for hundreds of years, before it
started to secretly cooperate with usa, and it still
tries to sabotage eu on behalf of usa.
The map here is a cold war picture, which we europeans do
not want to remember, a period of 50 years when our continent
was occupied and divided by the big powers usa and soviet.
It is a perspective which could make anti-european, american
people happy, but we europeans are happy that we finally can
restore european relations between countries after so many
years of occupation and a division enforced by outside powers.
The "regions" in the current version are chosen by somebody
who has no idea of the history of europe, and seems to be
an enemy of the union between france and germany which is
the basis for the european union and the modern europe.
The map and the section about regions is created by an enemy
of europe and the european union.
This section doesn't give much useful infomation and is
faulty, the only reasonable solution is to delete the
whole section.
If somebody wants to create a real "regions of Europe"
based on reality I don't mind, but the current version
is a propaganda piece against europe and EU.
Somebody would love to see a split between germany and france
and has divided europe in a very unnatural way in that map.
The text is just a list of european countries and it feels
like it is there just to justify the treacherous map.
Ask many french people, if they feel closer to britain or germany.
Most will reply that they are much closer to germany, politically,
economically, culturally and in many other ways.
Roger J.
I agree with Roger about the categorizations. The strict divide between Eastern and Western Europe is outdated and a result of the Iron Curtain. Culturally and geographically, we have Western, Central and Eastern Europe. The breakdown by region should be changed to reflect this.
DM
Dividing Europe linguistically?
What is the "Linguistic-cultural Regions in Europe" section meant to be? I have never heard of Europe being divided into linguistic regions. The existing section is misspelled, and gramatically incorrect. I have removed it for now. Does anyone think we should keep a section on Linguistic divisions of Europe? -- Hexagon1 06:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
This section has much more meaning than the "geographical" division above.
The European people doesn't group themselves in arbitrary "cardinal" division as shown above since it doesn't relate to any cultural reality.
Culturally a French will relate himself much better to an Italian or a Spanish than to A Dutch or a British !
The so-called "western Europe" grouping explained above have to be remove. Western Europe is ALL Western Europe (including Spain, Italy, Germany). Put together only France, Benelux and UK has absolutly no meaning. these countries doesn't share any common history, linguistic origins, not even common geographical characteristics or common climates (what in common beetwen Corsica, Bordeaux or Lyon with Edimbourg, Amsterdam or Dublin ??). This grouping is very subjective, I think it is a good thing to show that other classifications are more precise and reflect more clearly the real bonds among peoples.
This part of the article is really usefull, it describe an objective reality of Europe, while the"cardinal" classification put countries that don't have much in common in arbitrary "cardinal" groups.
But I agree the grammer in incorrect and should be corrected.
The linguistic division is not at all necessery and does not correlate to "culture clusters" as hinted in the above. E.g. mediterranian Europe could surely be considered one cultural cluster albeit different "language groups" (latin, slavic and greek). Equally the nordic cluster differs very much from a central European cluster even though the languages in the North are unrelated with each other and some of them are closely related with central European ones. If such a liguistic division be made, at least the stated facts should be checked beforehand: I've just removed a sentence which said that the UralicFinnish and Estonian are related to AltaicTurkish! Moreover, the Uralic or Finno-Ugric languages can be considered equally "European" (or equally non-European) as the Indo-European languages because both have been spoken in Europe about as long. Clarifer16:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "geographical regions of Europe" should be removed or rebuild
These "geographical" regions are geographically without meaning (the regions are not divided by montains, different climates, peninsulas, etc.) but are in reality coming from the socio-political divisions of Europe that date back from the 19th century in USA (in the case of "western Europe", see the article on W.Europe), or from the 20th (the cold war period). Since 1990 (end of communism) these divisions don't have any meaning anymore, what make the difference between West and east is not capitalism or communism, but the cultural grouping : linguitic groups (slavic, latin, germanic) and the religious herency (catholic, orthodox, protestant) that have left their landmarks in these regions since thousands of years.
In this page it should be only :
- A pure geographical grouping (Scandinavia, Iberian peninsula, Italian peninsula, Balkan peninsula, British isles, and "main landmass Europe".
- A pure political grouping based on the political situation of 2005, and not in the 19th century. (countries in the EU, countries out of it, countries that will enter it, etc.)
- a cultural grouping of the countreis and people based on linguistic or/and religious herency.
- Maybe a climatical grouping, since each climate (specific ways of life, specific food products, etc.) leave on the people a deep mark.
Europe is not a continent
No longer shall i accept yee communistic ways of calling europe a continent
Bold text
== EUROPE IS NOT A FUCKING CONTINENT!
==
Maybe it will be good to say from the beginning that Europe is commonly called a continent but folowing the definition it is only a peninsula of Eurasia.
In brief response:
(a) do not swear;
(b) cite and support your contentions and references properly. Otherwise, the 'communists' will win.
Why such frantic behavior? No, Europe is not a geological continent, but more of a cultural continent; or a subcontinent, like India and it's neighbors, separated by major geographical boundaries, although Europe isn't on its own tectonic plate. But in actuality there are only four continents: Eurasia/Africa, North America/South America, Australia, and Antarctica. Just an observation. --Jugbo
Hello; I'm sorry, but this is only one POV that should coexist with other definitions, if applicable, and not prevail. For example, two dictionaries – Oxford and Webster's – both list and reckon seven continents: Africa, Antarctica, Asia, Australia, Europe, North America, and South America. Feel free to verify this. Of course, other definitions are based on culture, geology, seismology, ecology, et al. E Pluribus Anthony00:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
E Pluribus Anthony, I wasn't suggesting that this should be the prevailing view. I was merely pointing out to the spastic reader above that if he wants to be so passionate about it, then he can say the same thing about Asia, as it is the other part of the true continent of Eurasia that it shares with the allegedly imaginary continent of Europe, and thus has no more "continent-ness" than does Europe. He could also claim that Africa isn't a continent either, because it is connected to Eurasia, and is really just a big peninsula, like Europe, though moreso. It is my understanding that some, like the Spanish, consider North and South America to be one continent, and this seems reasonable as they are connected to eachother and separated from the other major landmasses. However, you are right about there being a general agreement that there are seven continents, and that there are other continents defined in ways other than geographically, mainly culturally, like the Indian sub-continent. I just felt an obligation to say what I thought about the exclamation that "Europe is not a f***ing continent!" --Jugbo05:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Scotland Portal is now up and running. It is a project in the early stages of development, but I think it could be a very useful resource indeed, perhaps more for general readers (the vast majority I presume), rather than committed editors, who may be more attracted by the great possibilities of the notice board format: Wikipedia:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board.
Give it a Watch, and lend a hand if you can. It is (hopefully) fairly low-maintenance, but if we run with the "News" section, that will take dedication: time which I cannot commit to presently myself. Most other boxes need replacment/update only weekly, fortnightly, or monthly, plus the occasional refreshment of the Scotland-related categories. Anyway, I assume this is how the other Portals are run, so we can follow their lead.
Please add the following code - {{portalpar|Scotland}} - to your own User page, and you will have the link to the portal right there for easy access. I will investigate how other portals use shortcuts too.
Is possible that the name "Europe" may derived from the name "Brygians" (or Bryges or Baryges) a people in North Greece that in Classic Era has lived in Epirus and Western Macedonia?
Really, a part of Brygians crossed the strait of Bosporus and migrated to posterior Phrygia.
The name "Bryges" has the same root with name "Ambraces", a people who lived in Aetolia, in Western Greece.
The suffices (-ges) and (-ces) are ordinary ones, in ancient Greek tribe names.
The roots (*Bry-) and (*Ambra-) are agnate. So perhaps, Brygians and Ambracians were agnate peoples.
It is possible that the root of name of Europe (*Euro-) is a bastardization (or corruption) of the afore-mentioned roots. Perhaps, "the land that was in west of Hebrus river (i.e. the river of Ambracians/Brygians)" and was dwelled by them, was called "Ebra" (or such a thing) by pre-Indoeuropeans Hattians and Indoeuropeans Hittites of Asia Minor in 3rd and 2nd millennia BC. Akkadians took this name by Hittites and changed it to "Erebu". Finally, Greeks/Hellenes, in their turn, took this word as reverse loan-word and changed it to "Erebos".
Note: Europe (or Eurôpe, Ευρώπη)
The root is Euro- and the suffix is -ope (it is derived by -ops). Consequently, it has happened a change in suffix.
Hello, i would like to discuss the meaning of independent state. Why did my entries of Pridnestrovie and Abkhazia get deleted? they is just as independent as any other country. Or is it supposed to be just de jure independent states? if so i suggest an edit is in order. Pure inuyasha22:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kurdistan is not an independent state. Pridnestrovie and abkhazia are de facto independent, while Moldova and georgia are de jure independent. all of them are independent. Pure inuyasha22:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should there be a section on European immigration? Europe has always seen as a point of emigration but recently there is turmoil as Europeans are coming to terms with being a destination for immigrants. Htra0497 5th Jan 2006
I have to say that I find the edits on articles relating to Asia, Europe, Eurasia and Countries in both Asia and Europe to be lacking in NPOV. They strike me as much more prescriptive, dogmatic and normative than what is reasonable for a contentious or debatable topic like this. These users leave no room for alternative views with phrases such as "unsupportable delineations", "must necessarily", "by some undefined path", "now accepted worldwide", "the experts concur" and "side being ill-defined". And the recent edit displays sources smack in the middle of the text and not placed along with the other sources provided. Also, the namedropping of places like Morocco and New Zealand seems utterly out-of-place and irrelevant to the Caucasus-Urals dividing line. Unless something better is produced, either by DLinth or another user, I will revert to a more acceptable version and we can move on from there. Please discuss! :] //Big Adamsky19:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I apologise if it seemed like I was having a conniption fit (even nixing possibly legit edits throughout), but I thought these actions were clearly improper. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 07:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correcting the incorrect information about population figures
For a couple of days we noticed that the population figures of the transcontinental countries (Azerbaijan, Georgia, Russia and Turkey) are wrong according to the oficals odf those countries. We think that as Wikipedia- the source of correct information- the all population, area and pop. density should be added to the table, it would be more accurate. Please, let us know why do you revert, and maybe we can work together, in order to reach to correct information.
- Last person who reverted. Jan 12 Thursday 10:07
Au contraire. Said anon IP users maintained that Turkey or Cyprus are not in Asia and have made edits indicating that it is only in Europe – this is debatable and clearly POV. Said users also did so incessantly without any discussion, sourcing, or consensus. Said users then proceeded to change population and area figures for those territories, despite explicit provisos and links to apt articles/data, and without changing grand totals; thereafter, said users proceeded to change data for countries in the Caucasus too only after I suggested an equal treatment for relevant transcontinental nations like Russia.
The table is a conciliatory yet apt approach to reflect the duality of countries in said continents; the timeframe and links indicate sources/rationale for information included, with data obtained from various sources like the World Gazetteer, et al.
Importantly: repeated POV edits from anon IPs without discussion, consensus, nor sourcing are not conducive to building Wikipedia. Moreover, other POV edits from said users — trolling — have been reverted elsewhere (see above) and said anon IP users have reported. Until said users can garner consensus for said changes, the current version was and is valid. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea about the the people who are saying Cyprus and Turkey are in Europe, not in Asia, it is a general knowledge that they are in Asia geographically. But the population figures are wrong according the officals of those countries, also i checked the the source of those population figures, World Gazetteer, it says on an other page there is a city called Esenyurt in Turkey, but it is a small district in Istanbul. Also, in Turkey's pop figures do you consider Çanakkkale province in Europe or in Asia, it is on both continets like Istanbul. Also, there is no sure information about the European sides of Azerbaijan and Georgia in any source all geographers divide the two continents differently.
Thank you for you answer,
Jan 12, 11:29
Said users who repeatedly edit and revert without rationale/comment and using anon IPs, whomever they may be, add skepticism to said edits. All of this was happening in a condensed timeframe and there might have been collateral damage. :)
As well, the figures are not incorrect: they reflect figures from a certain timeframe and as indicated (with provisos). Arguably, any figure is dually verifiable yet inaccurate the moment it is published.
Ideally, the portions of Canakkale in Asia and Europe should be included in their respective articles. However, for this purpose, one can also reckon that it might be practical to include it in Asian figures since the provincial seat (and most of it) is in that portion, and statistics may not indicate otherwise.
I would like to get access to more external links. Is that possible?
Melbrooks
Has anyone ever noticed this ?
The Greek Island of Rhodes is considered to be European. There's a pretty big chunk(in terms of area) of Anatolia that lies geographically Northwest of it, and thats considered geographically asian
Look at this particular map to see what im talking about
User:Codex Sinaiticus, regarding our reveret-revert dispute:
Nakichevan "recognition" of TRNC is interesting fact and encyclopedic, but its place is not here. It is already mentioned on the Nakichevan and TRNC pages. In the "unilateraly cedded territories" list on the Europe page there are entities with "de-facto" control of their territory and no "de-jure" recognition by the other states. Karabakh and TRNC are also recognised by their main supporters (Turkey and Armenia) only. No other INDEPENDENT STATE in the world recognises these entities. Up to here we both agree, right?
Then, Nakichevan - an autonomous region of Azerbaijan (I am NOT disputting this) - adopted INTERNAL Nakichevan Parliament declaration about TRNC. But this does not mount to INTERNATIONAL "Recognition of TRNC by Azerbaijan". Only the CENTRAL AZERI institutions can adopt legaly binding documents in international affairs. So, maybe, after this Nakichevan declaration, the central authorities of Azerbaijan would LATER recognise TRNC. But currently they DO NOT.
I'm not sure I understand your argument. In fact, as you say, we don't seem to have any argument or dispute at all about these facts. We both agree this is the case. The only question is, is it encyclopedic enough to mention here? If consensus is against it, so be it, I just thought it made a neat footnote. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ural
I think territory of Uralic Federal District and its population should be also included to European area and population of Russia. Politically. As Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia etc. The district covers ural, which is home to Finno-Ugrians. Pretty much of them still living there and all administrative district has Uralic local languages as official.Elk Salmon11:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Geographically it's not in Europe. As well as Caucasian countries. But Uralic nations relates to Europe and spreaded over eastern and western ural. Permyaks, Komi etc lives in Northern District and Khanty and Mansi lives in Uralic District. Uralic district covers area that relates to Europe mentally, ethnically, culturally and nationally. Siberia and Far East populated by Russians that mostly moved there in mid XX century and by some local indigenous ethnic groups. Those are Asians. Elk Salmon14:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a point of view. Unquestionably, it's in Eurasia. What can you cite to support that the region is geographically in Europe? I can cite many maps and geographic sources that maintain it is not in Europe (as its western border lies along the crest of the Ural Mountains) and is, thus, largely in Asia. (Also see the article on transcontinental nations.) The map you've provided only demonstrates the linguistic commonality and divide of language groups in Russia (see below). It's just like associations of North America/South America and Latin America/Anglo-America, et al.: not all countries in North America are in Latin America. The same can be said of Turkey.
My point of view is comparing with Caucasus. They added to Europe because bordering with European countries by the border of Europe. Georgia because owns another side of mountains. So as Uralic Distric. Some countries also added to list because relates to Europe ethnically and linguistically. So as Uralic nations. Once they lived accross all central and eastern Europe together with Slavs. They have founded Moscow and many other EE cities. Now they accumulated into groups. Finns, Estonians and Hungrians in central Europe and Khanti, Mansi, Permiaks, Komies etc in their home lands in eastern Europe They relates to Europe. So points are: Uralic District own west side of mountains (border of Europe and Asia) and indigenous people are Europeans.Elk Salmon11:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But I think that the whole point advanced by Pluribus is that the continental dividing line is conventionally drawn along those two mountanin ranges, viz the Caucasus and the Urals. One could easily argue for it to have been drawn in multiple other ways for various purposes. And you are quite right in pointing out that ethno-linguistic world maps do differ quite a bit from maps of international organizations. But this article is not about language families or physical anthropology; these are simply different subjects. =J //Big Adamsky12:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC) See also examples of maps made by User:Aris_Katsaris.[reply]File:Map of skin hue equi.pngMap of skin-color distribution for "native populations" collected by Renato Biasutti prior to 1940.Current distribution of Human Language FamiliesMap of several regional organizations with non-overlapping memberships.
You did not got my point. We have to use version that show half of Gerogia in Europe because this half relates to the southern side of Caucasian mountains. So I have proposing to add Uralic District of Russia basing on same theory. Uralic Distric covers eastern side of mountains and covers area that considering European culturally, ethnically, linguistically. Elk Salmon13:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have, and disagree. You're talking about (splitting) a subnational entity that is arguably in one continent only, whereby we're talking about whole nations that clearly straddle both. And I still see nothing authoritative to support your position; until then or unless other Wikipedians agree with you, I think that's that. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how does it relates to citing sources? If you need to know administrative division of federation you can follow Subdivisions of Russia article. I don't see reason why subdivisions of federation could not be used. Elk Salmon15:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably, we already are using national subdivisions: the dividing line is commonly reckoned to coincide with the western border of the Uralic Federal District, not the eastern one. Essentially: if you cannot cite a reliable source to support your contention that (geopolitically) the Uralic Federal District is in Europe and that others can verify, that should detemine where/how/if it is included in Wp. Also, FYI: even the article/topic of note indicates "it is the westernmost of the three Asian districts." E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking not about Siberia or Far East. I'm talking about region that covers Ural mountains and some part behind it. Yet again I providedsource to support. It is main map on front page of article that showing what is in Europe and what is not. This map applyes one standard on south and another on east. Since that map shows too different point of view it should be corrected. Or east side of Europe should be extended to basement of Ural mountains (i suppose it just use border of Uralic District, which does not follow commonly known border between Asia and Europe). I see on south Georgia added to Europe and southern side of nountains stated as Europe down to basement. While border of Uralic Distric does not follow border between Europe and Asia. It is administrative border. Common understanding of border between Asia and Europe going by watershed of Middle Ural and foothills. about official Russian denotation about border between Asia and Europe.Elk Salmon22:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Faroe Islands, Jan Mayen, Svalbard
1) There is no such a thing called an "autonomous region" in Denmark. There is the "metropolitan Denmark" with administrative divisions named amter and there are also two self-governing territories of Denmark, namely Faroe Islands and Greenland. These are neither amter nor governed directly from Copenhagen but they are parts of the Kingdom of Denmark.
2) Jan Mayen island has no self-governance and it is not an "autonomous region". It is administratively part of the Norwegian county (fylke) of Nordland.
3) Svalbard was a "dependency" until 1925, when it was made a part of Norway per se Svalbard Act. The government of Svalbard is not self-governing and represents the central government in Oslo through a governor (sysselmann). However, because Norwegian sovereignty is internationally limited under Svalbard Treaty, the territory may be considered as a dependency. Behemoth 02.02.2006 02:14 (UTC)
Jan Mayen is not in the scope of Svalbard Treaty!!!!
Guernsey, Jersey, and the Isle of Man are not under UK sovereignty. They are the possessions of the British Crown. The only UK overseas territory in Europe is Gibraltar. Please don't make any changes in the article if you don't conceive this particular schism! Behemoth 02.02.2006 02:23 (UTC)
No argument here; thanks again. I've tweaked and truncated notions regarding these territories (e.g., removal of long-form names), to conform with simpler names for countries above – e.g., United Kingdom, not United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island etc... – and added notes to the table. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IATA "Europe"
The IATA definition of Europe (which I added) is fairly critical in the airline industry, at least. For just about any airline in the world, the word Europe on a ticket, in a tax, etc. means "IATA Europe", which oddly enough, includes places like Morocco. If someone feels that this isn't useful here, then please explain your reasoning so that the rest of us can understand, rather than just removing the text from the article without comment.
Hi there! Thanks for your note: that was me. While not completely inappropriate, the IATA list is an atomic scheme/list that overlaps with lists above it and without authority in this context. There are many such classification schemes to classify regions, and an article/treatment of Europe – a fairly top level geographic/cultural concept – needn't contain every scheme from international organisations. To put it another way: would a visitor consider a definition of Europe in terms of IATA classifications? Likely not. Morocco is likely included due to the Spanish exclaves within its borders.
Perhaps it would be better to note in-text that IATA Europe comprises members noted in the above table/list with appropriate exclusions/exceptions, or to include that classification scheme (with other regions) in the IATA article instead? Until then, I see little reason to retain it here. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
.png?lang=en)
