Talk:Europe: Difference between revisions

The notion that Europe is not truly a continent rests on a somewhat silly semantic dispute. Let's put it this way: the word 'continent' is defined by its examples. If, according to a definition of 'continent', Europe is not a continent, then that definition simply doesn't capture the ordinary use of the term. --LMS

Where are the borders of Northern Europe? I have noted that the name is often followed by the word biggest, largest or greatest; "The largest record store in Northern Europe". Does this include anything else than the Nordic countries? Is northern Germany included?

It usually means the parts of Europe where Germanic languages are spoken, or the countries that have no coast on the Mediterranean. Contrast with Southern Europe, which is where Romance languages or Greek are spoken, or that butt up against the Mediterranean.

Problem cases are France (usually considered to be straddling the divide), and much of Eastern Europe. The term is fairly vague. --PaulDrye

I'm still trying to track down the reference in Latin, but the first use of the word "Europa" to mean what WE mean by continental Europe as opposed to the peninsula opposite northern Asia Minor (Thrace, more or less) was in a vita of one of Charlemagne's great-great aunts, Gertrude of Nivelles: "from one of the best known families of Europe." --MichaelTinkler

Should Armenia and Georgia really be included in this list? I know that they sometimes are considered European, but AFAIK technically the geographic boundary of Europe ends at the Caucasus, not behind it. If it doesn't, then why isn't Azerbaijan, another ex-Soviet republic, also included? Is it just because they're mostly Christian nations? -Scipius

The borders of Europe are rather vague. Traditionally, Russia is counted as a part of it, even though the country stretches to Alaska. A small part of Turkey (up to the Bosporus) is sometimes counted, at other times the entire country.

Looking at sports federations, usually the following former USSR-states are included with Europe: Russia, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan. The rest is counted with Asia. This does not have to be a defite division, since Israel is also often part of the Europe for these federations (of course for political reasons). Jeronimo

I realise they're often lumped in with Europe because of convenience and proximity, but I find that a rather tenuous ground for including them in the primary geographical context. Given the notes on how Turkey and Russia aren't wholly part of this Europe, I vote to remove Armenia and Georgia from the list to a separate note mentioning that they (and Azerbaijan) are often associated with Europe, but not technically part of it in this context. -Scipius

Why should they not be? They both speak European languages and are culturally and historically as European as Greece is. It is considered relatively likely that Armenia is the original homeland of the Indo-European tribe(s), which almost all of Europe, Armenia included, has linguistic and cultural heritage from.

Azerbaijan on the other hand is ethnically Turkic (who aren't really any more European than the Arabs). They speak a Turkic language and are culturally tied with the Central Asian Turkic cultures.

The argument that people in the Caucasus can't be European because they often have black hair or possibly live on the wrong side of cracks under the ground is running a bit thin imho... -203.109.252.20

I thought the Urals were at least part of the border; the part of Russia between the Atlantic and the Urals is generally called "European Russia".

Europe is a geographical term--if Armenia is European for linguistic reasons, so is half the planet, including northern India, almost all of the Americas, and large parts of sub-Saharan Africa. I'm not prepared to accept a definition of Europe that would exclude Hungary and parts of Iberia, while including Iowa.

The argument that people in the Caucasus aren't in Europe isn't that they have black hair--it's that Europe is a geographic term, not one defined by ancestry. If Armenia and Georgia are in Europe, so is Azerbaijan. Vicki Rosenzweig

---

That's hardly the argument I presented, my problem with them is purely geographical. As Vicki made clear, speaking an Indo-European language (though Georgian is in fact not one) is not a prerequisite for being "European" and neither is "having black hair" reason for exclusion. There's no need to bring these notions into it. -Scipius

I'd suggest checking out geological sources, since Europe was a separate landmass that collided with Asia. But then, Italy and Greece would be part of Africa.

What do we really mean if we say that Europe ends at the Caucasus. The northern foothills? A line connecting the highest points? If the latter is true then the northeastern part of Azerbaijan is definitely located within Europe and possibly some small portions of northern Georgia are too. I also think a mention should be made of Kazakhstan. As stated in the article the Ural river is part of the European border. Part of Kazakhstan lies to the west of this river and is therefore located in Europe. -- G_from_B

How about "Baltic" states? Would that be Estonia, Latvia, et al.?

The Baltic States are most definitely in Europe. --Brion VIBBER

My notes for rewriting this article:

• Mention all the countries that could in some way be called European. Use footnotes for the countries that for some reason are not always included. BTW, looking at the mentioned Council of Europe (of which Belarus and the Vatican are not a member), all Caucasian countries are.
• Delete needless detail for this page, or at least add the same level of details everywhere.
  • Drop all the footnotes that have nothing to do with which country is included in the list (such as the current comments on overseas areas of the UK and France). These are only confusing and really having nothing to with the issue. If they are to be kept, also add Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal.
  • Drop all the extra info on the countries' names (like "sometimes called.." or "(REpublic of)"). If they are to be deleted, be complete for all nations.
• The different subgroups of nations should be listed in a see also list or so; there's too many of them, and they all have discussion over which nation to include or not.

Reactions are welcome, of course. Jeronimo 07:25 Jul 30, 2002 (PDT)

Sounds like you're the man for the job. Go for it. Ed Poor 07:33 Jul 30, 2002 (PDT)

I'm sorry, but I disagree. I feel this article should primarily be about the geographical context of Europe, with an extensive explanation of how the concept of "Europe" is a somewhat vague and ever-changing issue. All of the other definitions (political, cultural, etc) however do derive from the core geographic one and according to that one the Transcaucasus is outside Europe and hence should not be included in the main list nor should it really be suggested they geographically belong to Europe. I don't see why the membershiplist of the Council of Europe should suddenly overturn the common geographic definition.

The core geographical point is not well-established. Moreover, political and culture also play a role.

The core definition certainly is, as outlined in the article. It's the exact details that may be unclear, but the overall boundaries are well defined, even if (in the case of both Urals) they were mostly chosen because they were convenient. I've checked what several other encyclopedias say on the matter and all have the Caucasus as a boundary (Britannica even has the Kuma-Manych depression, which is north of the Caucasus). The Transcaucasus is outside. -Scipius

I agee with your last two points, but not entirely with your third about the notes. Since this information is added about Turkey and Russia, other nations' overseas areas should have a mention when a clarification might be needed. The people of Martinique or Guadeloupe do feel French, even if they aren't European. The note on the UK was not even about territory outside Europe and IMO relevant. I suggest perhaps putting the numbered notes back in, but maybe it would be better to just explain it all in a text below, as it is now. It would probably be easiest to just leave out the country list alltogether, but I'm not sure if that is desirable. -Scipius

I'd say Martinique is as much France as Greenland is Danish or Aruba is Dutch; feel free to add all the exceptions however. I think however, that all this is way too much detail; there's a note on overseas areas present btw. Same goes for the details on the confusing construction of the UK. Jeronimo 13:47 Jul 30, 2002 (PDT)

Martinique and Guadeloupe are French overseas departments. That means they are a lot closer to France than Greenland (not an EU territory) is to Denmark (EU member) or Aruba, which declined complete independence but otherwise has a far reaching autonomy. -Scipius

Why not treat Europe like the various country articles? Have breakout articles with titles like Geography of Europe, People of Europe, Economy of Europe, and if anyone thinks they're capable of it, History of Europe. Ed Poor

Hey, that's a good idea Ed! Jeronimo

That will certainly help with reducing the amount of information the main article would need, but would not get rid of the present issue: what countries should go in the list? -Scipius

I think the NPOV comes up here: since there's apparently different opinions, Wikipedia should reflect all in a neutral way. To me, mentioning all nations that are by some regarded as European are mentioned; those that are not always included are annotated, footnoted or whatever to mark that their inclusion is debatable. Jeronimo

NPOV may also demand that we keep to the only definition of Europe that is at least reasonably clear, the geographical one, which is also the most neutral one, since it doesn't necessarily involve those troublesome human creatures and their differing ideas ;) I'm concerned about the definition here; we give it at the top of the page and then violate it in the prominent list. On what ground is Armenia European, but not the whole of Russia, Turkey or even Israel? See also the maps that are now added that don't have the Transcaucasus in Europe, but do include it in Asia. I'll move the Transcaucasus to a separate note after some time, while awaiting any further comments. -Scipius

No, NPOV says all "sides of the story" should be told in a neutral way. BTW, another encyclopedia I checked mentions that the Caucasian states are included "by convention", mentioning the Caucasus range as the southern border, also "by convention". Jeronimo

Including the Transcaucasus in the main list is not neutral IMO, but rather acknowledging a certain view. The issue here is which definition to use and taking the core geographic definition of Europe and adhering strictly to it in terms of classifying nations can serve as a base to explain all the other definitions of Europe. What would you do about the as yet non-existent list of Asian countries? Would you include or exclude the Transcaucasus there? Can a whole country belong to two continents at the same time? -Scipius

The geographical boundaries of the European continent are not as easy to define as, say, those of Africa. The inclusion issue is practically a textbook case of the need to honor several disparate points of view. I think all agree that France is in Europe, but what about Iceland? Okay, then what about Greenland? Where are the exact boundaries, and who draws them?

All we can say is that according to so-and-so the boundary is here, while thus-and-such says it's there. Is Turkey in Europe? I don't know or care! Just tell me who says it is, and leave it at that, please. Ed Poor

As I said, the geographic one outlined in the article is pretty well established AFAIK. Iceland used to have a note saying it didn't belong to any continent (it's right on the mid-Atlantic ridge and though I've never heard of tectonic plates being used in continental definitions, it's debatable), but since we need to classify it somewhere it clearly belongs to Europe. Greenland is North American by most accounts. And not all of France is in Europe ;) -Scipius

Why do we have a German-language map accompanying this English-language article? -- Zoe

We don't now ;) -Scipius

Turkey is neither linguistically nor ethnically European.

I deleted the above statement. It was not justified in any way. See the original discussion above.

--zeno 09:24 Jan 28, 2003 (UTC)

When did Oceania become a continent? RickK 19:40, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Aah, the old "five parts" of the globe: I think it's in part a European tradition that there must be a terra australis incognita to match the other bits, comnbined with a need to somehow aggregate the non-Eurasian/African/African bits that might not otherwise necessarily be big enough individually to update the ancients' (to them perfectly logical) arrangement. It's all nonsense of course beyond its dubious macroregional listing function and our common wish to lump together things we're not too sure about. Graculus 19:55, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Note 8 is referenced beside Czechia. There is no note 8. Anyone know what it should say or should the number be removed? -- SGBailey 2003-08-06

This was about the name Czech Republic or Czechia. - Patrick 11:16, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

No mention of Channel Islands in list of coutries; they're not part of UK. Andy Mabbett 11:45, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

They're also neither one entity(being divided between Guernsey and Jersey, and Guensey being subdivided, though not administratively), nor a country(instead two crown dependencies, I believe).

Taken from the article

Often other borders of Europe are drawn, based on political, economical, cultural or practical considerations. This has led to there being several different "Europes" that are not always identical in size, including or excluding countries dependent on the definition of "Europe" used. The idea of a European "Continent" is not universally held. Many non-European geographical texts refer to a Eurasian Continent, or a European "Sub-continent", due to the fact that "Europe" is not surrounded by sea and is much more of a cultural area than geographically definable area. In the past concepts such as "Christendom" were deemed more important.

Increasingly, the word "Europe" is primarily being used as a synonym for the members of the European Union (EU). Fifteen European states are currently members of the EU, with 10 more due to join by mid-2004, a few more negotiating for membership and several more expected to commence negotiations at some stage in the future. Almost all European states are members of the Council of Europe; the sole exceptions are Belarus and the Vatican City.

I dont think this passage is correct myself. Actually Europe's physical borders are clearly defined and end at the Ural mountains in Russia, where the European tectonic plate meets the Asian one.

Also the map does not show the full extent of Europe's boundaries and is not therefore not correct. Europe actually includes roughly 1\3 of Russia, which is not shown on the map on this article. G-Man 18:37, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think that both the geographic and other boundaries are worth a mention in the article. It does seem odd to prefer some of the latter on the /map/... --Shallot 21:15, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The fact remains that the current map does not show the whole of Europe, a better map of Europe is here [1] G-Man 22:15, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I reverted Moravice's removal of the European flag because AFAICS it was being removed on the grounds that it's only a symbol of the EU, rather than the whole continent. This isn't so; the Council of Europe (who are not part of the European Union but themselves use the flag as a symbol) designed it as a pan-European flag. More is at European flag. Marnanel 22:32, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

I had no idee that the flag was the work of the Council of Europe not only a symbol of the EU. And as I found no explenation of it being there, on the page or any previous discusion on the talk pages, I simply removed it.
Thanks to Marnanel for correcting my error.
However I stil can't see any reason for the flag being on the page for the continent Europe without references or even a natural placement (the curent seems pretty random).
Moravice

Moravice is of course right. There are two fundamental reasons why the flag has to be removed:

1. There are no references at all in the text to the flag, noe reasons given why it should be relevant to display it at the Europe page. Of course at least one good reason could be given: The flag represents a large fraction of the European countries, namely EU. But in the text you don't find that argument.
2. The argument provided by Maranel sounds strange. Why should EU choise a flag representing an other unit? Whatever history the flag might have, EU has taken the flag and converted it to a symbol for the EU members. It could not be any doubt of this.

Conlusion: I remove the flag.
Arnejohs

There certainly needs to be context for the flag - but Arnejohs, it is the flag of the Council of Europe - of which most European (not just EU) States are members. The Council of Europe continues to be seperate from the EU - that's why there's two 'Europe Days'. Conclusion - this is the European flag. Besides - to outsiders the EU and Europe are largely synonymous - which is fair enough considering more and more States will be joining the EU once conditions are right. The only exceptions are likely to continue to be Iceland, Norway and Switzerland - other States will be joining when they're ready!!!

Zoney 11:31, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Certainly, I do not deny that this flag was (is?) the flag of the Council of Europe [1] (it’s already said in the text above). In 1983 it was declared as the flag of Europe by EU. Today the rest of the world recognises the flag as the EU flag. OK, may be some people don’t differ between EU and Europe, but an encyclopaedia needs to. EU tries to annexe the word ‘Europe’ as the U.S. of A. took the word ‘America’. To insiders the US of A and America are largely synonymous - which is not fair enough and should be avoided in the case of Europe by spreading knowledge rather than confusion.

We have to accept that this flag today is understood as the flag of EU. Let me give you an example: Inside EU number plates on all cars in addition to a number also displays this flag. It is impossible to think that this could happen in European countries outside EU. Even the Council of Europe has understood this and adopted a new logo.
Arnejohs

Surely it is not correct to say that the Dark Ages extended up until the Renaissance. The Dark Ages started in the 5th century CE and ended about the time of Charlemagne, around 800 CE. The Renaissance did not start until the 14th century. In between was the "Middle Ages", a well understood period of feudal states which were not "dark" and which included the cathedral-building period and the Crusades.

According to my history books, the whole period between 476 and 1492 is referred to as the Middle Ages, and the Dark Ages are mentioned as a more subjective name for earlier periods of the Middle Ages. I guess it depends on the historian's views. --Shallot 17:29, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus is located south of Turkey and west of Syria, and therefore not in Europe. If it were, then all of Turkey would be considered in Europe. Cyprus is already mentioned as a member of the European Union. Pædia | talk 17:14, 2004 May 4 (UTC)

We allow some variation in the descriptions and in the maps based on criteria that aren't geographic. To completely omit Cyprus would be pointless. --Shallot 17:22, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Why is link to the 'general' World Factbook page 'largely impertinent'? Would CIA - The World Factbook -- Field Listing - Location be more appropriate, as it lists continents?

What do you mean by 'We'? What authoritative resource places Cyprus in Europe? Pædia | talk 17:52, 2004 May 4 (UTC)