Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:03, 21 July 2005

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Template for discussion ...}} with {{subst:Template for discussion ...}}.

Republic of Macedonia

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

Being neither Slovene nor Macedonian, I totally agree.

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

This should remain as it is so as not to confuse the modern-day state with the Greek province of the same name, if you were Greek you´d feel the Macedonians were trying to make a name for themselves off of Ancient Greek history.

It seems someone changed it in the meantime to say just "Macedonia", I'll amend it a bit. --Shallot 12:16, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If nobody minds, I'll change it to FYR Macedonia, which atleast indicates there's still a dispute about the name but is shorter than either "Republic of Macedonia" or the full expansion of FYROM. Aris Katsaris 20:38, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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

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

Geographic definition and stuff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I had the understanding that Template:Europe is geographic, with Template:EU countries (or Template:EU countries and candidates) and Council of Europe (all the above except Kazakhstan) as the political equivalents. If this is wrong, I apologise.

You would be correct to say the border 'along the Caucasus' 'are rather more difficult to figure out' and 'arguable that Baku is on the southern side.' Can we at least agree that northern Azerbaijan is in geographic Europe?

However, the border extends by 'the Ural River in the east', including a minor section of Kazakhstan.

It probably is more correct to state 'Istanbul is a European city by any definition' except culturally Middle Eastern.

Pædia | talk 05:37, 2004 May 6 (UTC)

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

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

Israel participates in the song contest. Is it in Europe? David.Monniaux 08:02, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

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

Flag?

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

It's the European flag, not exclusively the European Union flag. -- User:Docu

See Logo & Flag page of the Council of Europe (not an EU body) here –Hajor

See earlier discussion at Talk:Europe. After EU taking over the flag, it is a POV that it stil is a European flag, but certainly not a NPOV. Therefore it should not be reinserted. --Arnejohs 10:15, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

*sighs*

Look, it is the flag of the Council of Europe, and hence of Europe the continent - this is a statement of fact, not a POV. Whether or not it is the flag of the EU as well is irrelevent to whether or not this is a fact.

Similarly, we have the flag of Chad on the pages about Romania (or vice versa) - just because two entities use the same flag, doesn't mean that we have to chose which one we prefer to claim has proper ownership (which really is a POV).

You yourself said that we, as an encyclopædia, should attempt to be correct in all things, not just the ones that are so in the popular consiousness. This is one of those points.

I suppose we could have a footnote pointing out that the flag is also used by the EU, but that they are wholly distinct entities and uses...

James F. (talk) 10:42, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

1. The EU flag (even the image file is named Eunion.png) was removed from the Europe article April 3. No one has argued that it should be inserted. I take that as an agreement.
2. A flag is a symbol and in the MediaWiki it is used as such. That is: It should give the wanted associations. This is not the case here since it is being used in different contexts causing confusion.
3. As long as this is causing a discussion it is a POV to include the flag. Not including the flag is not an action; it is simply avoiding an action that is causing discussion. Not to include the EU flag in the European context certainly is consistent with the NPOV policy of Misplaced Pages.
4. Even though the European Council proposed the flag used for all the European countries, they use a different logo today (with an e in the middle of the stars) in order to avoid confusion with the EU flag.
5. I do not believe Albania, Andorra, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia , Iceland, Liechtenstein, Macedonia, Moldova, Monaco, Norway, Romania, Russia, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine and Vatican City find it naturally being labelled in an serious encyclopædia by the most pronounced symbol of the European Union, their flag. Do you?

Arnejohs 11:16, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Oh, never mind. I can see that we're not going to agree (though I would disagree about the removal of something not being an action). I give up (but not in).

I suppose there's a first time for everything. ;-)

James F. (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jdforrester, I hate being the stubborn one, but I think you have a nice way of stating the disagreement in a way by which we both can be open to reconsider the case in the future. Certainly there is a time for everything, may be even a time of giving a flag to a continent. Because in this context Europe is not EU and not even the European Council, but simply the continent Europe (which (by the way) is hard enough to define...). Have a nice day. ---Arnejohs 20:46, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

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

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

Dependencies

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

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

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

CIA - The World Factbook lists Jan Mayen and Svalbard as equivalents to Gibraltar. Pædia | talk 16:02, 2004 May 3 (UTC)

Paedia: I have also been wondering if not Jan Mayen and Svalbard should be included. I guess the Factbook is right in this case. --Arnejohs 16:14, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Jan Mayen and Svalbard are integral parts of Norway, just like Åland is an integral part of Finland. --Wik 18:41, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

Jan Mayen may be considered an integral part of Norway, but not Svalbard, which has a special arrangement through the Svalbard Treaty. --Arnejohs 18:46, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

By the treaty it became an integral part of Norway; the other provisions of the treaty don't detract from that. --Wik 19:00, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

Åland is one of six provinces (laanit, singular - laani)—Aland, Etela-Suomen Laani, Ita-Suomen Laani, Lansi-Suomen Laani, Lappi, Oulun Laani—and therefore currently not a territory.

CIA - The World Factbook -- Field Listing - Dependent areas lists Gibraltar, Jan Mayen, and Svalbard as territories of their respective sovereign nations. Stating that they are 'integral parts of Norway' would be like Navassa Island, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, and a few Pacific Islands as 'integral parts of' the US. Pædia | talk 17:30, 2004 May 5 (UTC)

I guess that means that Misplaced Pages's "litmus test" is the listing in the CIA World Factbook. ...well, as a Finn I'm of course pleased, but I'm not quite sure if Ålanders are. ;-) /Tuomas 18:34, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I would not call it the only 'litmus test', but at least as recognised by the US government. Åland Islands on Encyclopedia.com states 'Under pressure from the Soviet Union, Finland's parliament renounced the League guarantee of autonomy in 1951 but at the same time accorded the islanders additional rights of self-government.' Is this similar to the UK allowing Scotland certain self-governing? Pædia | talk 19:02, 2004 May 5 (UTC)

There you have one of the controversies. /Tuomas 19:44, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

What was the nature of the League of Nations autonomy; a bilateral agreement between Finland and Sweden garanteed by the League? Even if this was the case one might wonder in what sense Finland had the authority to unilaterally cancel these provisions. Though the importance of this question in 1951, ought to have been relatively minor as compared as to the status of the relations to the Soviet Union and not only for Finland, but also for Sweden which had been a contender for the statehood of the islands three decades earlier. -- Mic 15:57, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't know exactly how the Russians reasoned, but basically I suspect their line of thought was that the Paris Peace Treaty had (like earlier the Molotow-Ribbentrop Pact and lesser known conversations between London and Moscow) alotted Finland to Soviet's sphere of interest; and Soviet client-states (aka: satellites) were not supposed to have obligations to others unless the obligation in question was in the interest of Russia. The opinion of one of my relatives, who has a professional interest in the issue, is that Åland's position according to international law technically is "disputed" - although a dispute that hasn't been brought up to surface in the last 50 years, as no-one has anything to gain from discussing the issue. Finland is careful not to provoke the Ålanders, who if upset might case international hullabaloo, but also not to provoke Russians - or Swedes. The policy is to adhere to the treaties without discussing whether they are still in force or not. (The ambiguity due to translations of terms "maakunta"/"landskap" to Russian, French or English, follows a broad successful track in the history of Finland's independence process.) /Tuomas 07:54, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Svalbard and Jan Mayen

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

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

The Kingdom of Norway seems to disagree:

'consists of the western and northern parts of the Scandinavian peninsula as well as the northern territories of Jan Mayen and the Svalbard archipelago'

'foreigner' Pædia 05:42, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

Norway.org does not disagree. (See better Norway!) It is clearly stated in the article that Jan Mayen and Svalbard are parts of the kingdom, i.e. that they cannot be dependencies. (The Northern Territory in Canada is not a Canadian dependency.) But Norway.org is wrong concerning Queen Maud Land, Peter I Is. and Bouvet Is.: These territories are not parts of the Kingdom, but Norwegian dependencies. Jakro64 10:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Further also Faroe Islands are an integrated part of the kingdom of Denmark and no dependency. The list of dependencies is therefore full of mistakes and not very serious. 213.164.101.242 08:02, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Cantus

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

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

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

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

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

Mutual Exclusivity

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

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

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

Ditto. --Cantus 20:23, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

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

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

I agree with deleting the continent articles. Not as important to show all countries on the same continent on each country page. EU and NATO are much more important (see close and military allies at a glance) - having stuff like the continent boxes just encourages people to complain about having ANY boxes! Zoney 17:24, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree too. If I'm reading n article about, say, Belgium and I read that it's in Europe and want to know what other countries aer in Europe, I'll simply click on the link to Europe and see there. What's the point of having this box? --Kpalion 15:43, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Font size

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

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

Holy See

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

CIA - The World Factbook -- FAQs states:

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

Pædia 15:11, 2004 Jun 17 (UTC)

Poll: Which items should be listed?

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

Should this be listed on Misplaced Pages:Announcements per Misplaced Pages:Polling guidelines #4? Pædia 07:18, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. --Cantus 22:06, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

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

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

OPEN POLLS

Kazakhstan

Votes: 68
Support: 50%

Include in list.

Note: According to Britannica, Whitaker's Almanack 2004 (page 2), World Book, and CIA - The World Factbook, Kazakhstan lies partially in Europe (portion west of the Ural River), with the majority of the territory in Asia.

Support

1. Cantus - Undisputed and sizable territory in Europe.
2. SimonP 02:56, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
3. Nikola 03:55, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
4. Pædia - Agree with Cantus on this.
5. Warofdreams 18:42, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
6. Moravice 23:50, 1 June 2004 (UTC)
7. Gdabski 14:01, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
8. Shallot - Include, with some footnote.
9. James F. (talk) 09:32, 30 May 2004 (UTC) (vote changed: James F. (talk) 04:41, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC))
10. Dittaeva 18:47, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
11. Profoss 09:02, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
12. Hokanomono 08:55, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC) - seems to be the same issue as with Russia and Turkey.
13. Europa 03:43, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC) - Has exactly the same rights to be considered part of Europe as Turkey
14. Joao Campos 18:28, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
15. Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 18:36, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC) - support with a condition that a disclaimer/footnote is included.
16. Alinor - support, territory west of Ural river on the european continent by all standarts (if not, then where is the border?). Footer-note needed of course.
17. Andre (talk) 00:31, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
18. A D Monroe III 20:06, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) - The eastern border of Europe is ill-defined; we should be inclusive
19. Yes, with footnote. Bart133 (t) 04:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
20. Nightstallion 12:29, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
21. Beta_M , | (Ë-Mail) 18:34, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
22. Wild ride 04:31, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
23. --Monkbel 11:07, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
24. FrancisTyers 03:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) - If Turkey and Russia are in, Kazakhstan should be.
25. Jacoplane 03:46, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
26. Instantnood 09:06, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
27. --Eigenwijze mustang 08:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) - Got an official invitation to join the Council of Europe
28. Joolz 18:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
29. Kazakhstan is a member of UEFA and a large part is in Europe.  Grue  10:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
30. Theathenae 29 June 2005 13:26 (UTC) If fellow Turkic Azerbaijan and Turkey are "European", then Kazakstan should be included too. Might as well add the rest of Central Asia while you're at it.
31. SouthernComfort 3 July 2005 05:20 (UTC)
32. Lapsed Pacifist 16:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
33. With footnote. -- Elisson • Talk 17:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
34. Why not? Whom can it possibly hurt? This is one of those times when there's no downside to inclusionism. But furthermore, these polls have clearly failed. Among other things, the voting mechanism is laughable — either there's a quick and unfairly sacrosanct resolution or there's eternal and mathematically unbreakable stalemate. We should start again from scratch; please see my suggestion at the bottom of the page. Doops | talk 17:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Rmhermen 16:57, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
2. Matthewmayer 10:58, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
3. blankfaze | •-• 16:05, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
4. ✏ Sverdrup 10:50, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
5. "DICK" CHENEY 01:53, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
6. john k 06:03, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
7. Dmn 07:09, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
8. Merovingian✍Talk 00:57, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
9. Aris Katsaris 21:01, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC) - Neither Europe nor Kazakhstan consider Kazakhstan part of Europe.

   Actually, the Kazakhstan Embassy in the UK considers Kazakhstan part of Europe. Please see comments. Pædia 03:14, 2004 Jul 24 (UTC)

10. webkid 13:12, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
11. older≠wiser 13:22, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
12. Ejrrjs 00:49, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
13. Comrade Tassadar 01:39, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC) - I hope I can vote...It seems strange that a nation that essentially is Central Asian would be placed in the Europe template.
14. PedanticallySpeaking 15:28, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC). Absurd to consider this country European.
15. Bogdan | Talk 10:58, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
16. CheeseDreams North of pakistan which is in asia.
17. No way. Dr Zen 11:29, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
18. I do not think so. Blacklite 03:59, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
19. Malyctenar 10:54, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) How could there be overlap with Template:Central Asia?
20. Teemu Leisti 22:35, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
21. Micga 00:45, 04 Mar 2005 (CET)
22. 80.255 18:21, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
23. Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 01:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) Since the majority of the Kazakhstani (sp?) territory is in Asia, it belongs under Asia. Not Europe.
24. EnSamulili Not historically, culturally nor geographically. --EnSamulili 23:39, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
25. Not generally considered part of Europe. 199 11:09, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
26. Barely European geography-wise, and not at all European culture-wise Juppiter 00:32, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
27. *drew 04:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
28. Calton | Talk 07:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC) For what it's worth, Kazakhstan is sharing the Central Asia pavilion at Expo 2005.
29. Gugganij 19:16, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
30. Stratton 04:05, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)-- Nobody I know would call Kazakhstan a European country.
31. -- Stereotek 14:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
32. Valentinian 13:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC) I can't think of anybody I know who'd even consider calling Kazakhstan a part of Europe. Geographically, culturally, and historically it belongs to Asia.
33. KissL 15:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
34. User:WikiFan04
35. MBisanz 00:02, 21 July 2005 (EST)

Comments

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

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

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

Whitaker's Almanac - more weblinks includes a link to the Kazakhstan Embassy in the UK, that states:

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

Pædia 20:09, 2004 Jun 5 (UTC)

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

Actually, it's on the least undefined part of the most undefined part of the border :) I don't think I've seen a single reference to anything other than the Ural river (AKA Zhayq or something like that, near the mouth), and Kazakhstan clearly has territory to the west of it. --Shallot 12:09, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I suppose you're right. But the Ural River was just chosen at random so that there would be some border of Europe in the area south of the Ural Mountains. There is no cultural or historic reason to explain this supposed border - it is simply something made up by geographers. The Urals have at least some vague resonance as the eastern border of Europe. The Ural River, as far as I am aware, really does not. It just happens to be conveniently located to connect the south end of the Ural Mountains to the Caspian Sea. The border of Kazakhstan is equally well suited to that task. john k 16:34, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This box is about the continent Europe, not about the political entity known as Europe. Geographical boundaries, as arbitrary as you think they may be, are what is being argued here. So what if Greenland hasn't played a role in the history of America? It is still a part of that continent. --Cantus 21:33, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The European border is entirely artificial there. One might just as easily say that the present border of Kazakhstan is where Europe ends as say that it's the Ural river. To do so would not present any particular problems. john k 16:57, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Actually that explanation doesn't quite hold much water because we seemed to have accepted that the border is on the Caucasus main range, whereas there are definitions that place that border on the Kuma-Manych Depression. We can't pretend that we're arguing about something deterministic here... --Shallot 19:14, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If the "border is entirely artificial there", then why not move it to exclude Russia or all former Soviet states? Pædia 05:42, 2004 Jun 18 (UTC)

The border is arbitrary because the notion that Europe is a continent is not based on any geographic properties but on the history of geography. Those who are empassionate about arbitrary borders might better argue that Europe, Afrika, and Asia together form one big continent? In Misplaced Pages we will have to use the borders that geographers use, although we know that they have chosen the borders arbitrarily. --Hokanomono 09:13, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)

Russia traditionally has been considered a European country. As have Ukraine, the Baltics, Belarus, and Moldova. Excluding them would be ridiculous. Europe is as much a cultural as a geographical construct, and Russia has been considered a part of Europe since the 18th century at least. john k 02:54, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Exactly, but this discussion is not about tradition nor culture but geography. That is why one might not see 'Kazakhstan' in History of Europe, but should be at Europe. Excluding Kazakhstan would be ridiculous, as you say 'Europe is ... a geographical construct'. Pædia 03:14, 2004 Jul 24 (UTC)

Kazakhstan is considered a Central Asian republic, both by itself and by its neighbours as far as I know. Check out the official page of its president: "Kazakhstan is situated in Central Asia, deep in the Eurasian continent." Aris Katsaris 21:07, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

True. We do not argue that it is not a Central Asian republic, which I hope we all agree, but that it is partly in Europe. This according to all authoritative resources and the Kazakhstan Embassy in the UK. Please see comments above. Pædia 03:14, 2004 Jul 24 (UTC)

France is partly in South America, and Spain is partly in Africa, but I would definitely advocate against them being listed among the countries of those continents also. I don't feel that Kazakhstan is *significantly* in Europe, the same way that I don't feel that France is significantly in South America, or Spain significantly in Africa. Aris Katsaris 04:38, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So you agree that Kazakhstan is in Europe, just not 'significantly', much in the same way as Georgia and Turkey. Actually, (metropolitan) France itself is entirely in Europe but has overseas departments (for administrative purposes) outside of Europe. A map of France should show the mainland and Corsica, not its overseas departments and territorial collectivities. Likewise, Spain has an autonomous community, Canary Islands, and three small Spanish possessions off the coast of Morocco. Ceuta and Melilla on the coast of North Africa have limited autonomous status. Pædia 21:35, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)

I think that Turkey is *very* significantly in Europe -- Its greatest city is Istanbul for example which has more than 10 million population and straddles the border between Asia and Europe. The whole of Georgia straddles the vague geographical borders between Europe and Asia and sees itself as culturally European. I have seen several maps of France (and the European Union) which include its overseas departments: indeed these overseas departments are all depicted upon the Euro notes. And regardless of whether Ceuta and Mellila have "limited autonomous status" they're nonetheless integral parts of Spain -- in Africa. Aris Katsaris 21:58, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is disrespectful about calling a country an "Asian nation"? Nolens volens you are implying that Europe is somehow superior to Asia. Gugganij 29 June 2005 15:14 (UTC)

Armenia

Votes: 71
Support: 62%

Include in list.

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

Support

1. Zoney 09:10, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
2. SimonP 02:56, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
3. Nikola 03:55, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
4. blankfaze | •• 16:14, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
5. Kasperl 18:31, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
6. Dmn 07:01, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
7. Europa 03:40, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC) - How can one be so ignorant of culture and history to exclude this ancient european nation from the definition of europe, while including Turkey?
8. Aramgutang 14:43, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC) - I agree with the above.
9. Joao Campos 18:30, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) - I agree with Europa.
10. Alinor - Cyprus is included (geographicaly it is purely Asian), so Armenia should be included too
11. Bogdan | Talk 10:58, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC) - the language and culture is European.
12. Comrade Tassadar 09:04, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
13. Ejrrjs 18:28, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) Culturally European.
14. J.K. ] 08:54, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC) Seems odd to include Azerbaijan and Turkey in Europe but not Armenia.
15. Andre (talk) 00:31, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
16. Bart133 (t) 00:12, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) Why Azerbaijan and Turkey but not Armenia?
17. Nightstallion 12:31, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
18. Beta_M , | (Ë-Mail) 18:35, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
19. Wild ride 04:31, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
20. Micga 00:47, 04 mar 2005 (CET) - it would be really unfair to have only Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkay included without Armenia
21. --Monkbel 11:07, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
22. --Tabib 15:09, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC) - Armenia, along with Azerbaijan and Georgia should be included in the list.
23. Jacoplane 03:46, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
24. Instantnood 09:06, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
25. --THOTH 17:43, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) I'm actually against Georgia, Armenia, Adjerbaijan and Khazakstan being considered as being in Europe - but if the latter two are then I will vote for the former - my vote switches if the latter two are no longer considered European. I'm also generally against Turkey being considered European.
26. Joolz 18:20, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
27. Hedley 15:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
28. Moosh88 Do any of the people who voted for Azerbaijan to be included in the European template know any history?So some uneducated people supported Azerbaijan being on the Europe template, O.K.? Now take out a map and look at Armenia and Georgia. Both countries are closer to Europe than Azerbaijan. Please someone explain how Azerbaijan is in Europe but the other two Caucasian nations are not. On top of that Armenians are an Indo-European people, whereas Azeri's and Georgians are not. Armenia's culture is more so tuned to that of other European nations than Azerbajians which is a lot closer to Central Asian culture. On a further note both Armenia and Georgia have better political relations with Europe. If the community wishes to be ignorant that's fine with me. I know the truth, and unfortunately a side effect of letting anyone edit Wiki is that people with very little knowledge or with a bias post incorrect information. I hope that the majority of the members on Wiki are more educated than what this debate is showing. If anyone would like me further to support the Armenian and Georgian cause with more information please contact me.
    • See response in #Comments below. Tomer 18:43, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
29. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions
30. -- Stereotek 14:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
31. Maartenvdbent 11:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
32.  Grue  10:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
33. Why have footnotes 1 & 2 if we're not prepared to use them?
34. Theathenae 29 June 2005 13:26 (UTC) Most definitely, especially if Turkey and Azerbaijan are included.
35. SouthernComfort 3 July 2005 05:20 (UTC)
36. Valentinian 14:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC) Include, use the footnote used for Cyprus. I consider both Georgia and Armenia to be more European than Azerbaijan, so it makes little sense to exclude Georgia and Armenia while including Azerbaijan.
37. Lapsed Pacifist 16:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
38. KissL 15:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC) Armenia belongs to Europe in terms of its culture.
39. As with Georgia, above. Septentrionalis 17:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
40. -- Elisson • Talk 17:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
41. WikiFan04
42. Use footnote 2. Tomer 18:43, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
43. Eupator 22:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC) - Armenia has always been a European state. The fact that there is even a poll concerning this is ridiculous and the inclusion of Azerbaijan, Turkey and Kazakhstan is just hilarious. To be European is a pre-requisite to be Armenian.
44. Of course it belongs in this template (and in the Asia one too of course). But furthermore, these polls have clearly failed. Firstly, it is illogical not to discuss the caucasus region as a whole (this doesn't mean that they have to stand or fall together; but if they're split up, it should be with a coherent rationale — not just the vagaries of separate elections); and secondly, the voting mechanism is laughable — either there's a quick and unfairly sacrosanct resolution or there's eternal and mathematically unbreakable stalemate. We should start again from scratch; please see my suggestion at the bottom of the page. Doops | talk 17:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Cantus - Let's stick with geographical definitions.
2. James F. (talk) 09:32, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
3. Rmhermen 16:57, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
4. Pædia - Agree with Cantus on this.
5. Warofdreams 18:42, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC) - Agree with Cantus
6. Moravice 23:50, 1 June 2004 (UTC)
7. Gdabski 14:05, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
8. "DICK" CHENEY 01:53, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
9. Shallot - Exclude, except with a very fat disclaimer.
10. john k 06:05, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC) Not in Europe at all.
11. Dittaeva 18:54, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
12. Merovingian✍Talk 01:00, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
13. Matthewmayer 10:58, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
14. webkid 13:12, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
15. older≠wiser 13:25, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
16. Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 18:42, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
17. PedanticallySpeaking 15:31, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
18. Dr Zen 11:34, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
19. Blacklite 04:00, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
20. Malyctenar 10:54, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) As above.
21. Chris 73 Talk 12:06, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
22. Teemu Leisti 22:40, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
23. --Gramaic 19:38, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
24. *drew 04:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
25. Caligvla 18:42, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) - Agree with Cantus, As a European I find it offensive to call these Middle Eastern people Europeans!! They are Culturally devoid of any European idenity

    User has only three contributions, two of which are to this page. Also he/she appears to be speaking rubbish. Dmn / Դմն 29 June 2005 11:56 (UTC)

26. Gugganij 12:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
27. David.Monniaux 17:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
28. MBisanz 00:02, 21 July 2005 (EST)

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe, but #Whitaker's Almanack 2004, World Book, and CIA - The World Factbook disagree. Pædia 15:11, 2004 Jun 17 (UTC)

Compared to Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan Armenia's culture and history are much more European. My votes reflect the importance I place on culture Dmn 19:49, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Not exactly correct. Armenia's culture has more in common with European culture than with the Islamic culture area that surrounds it on most sides, but that is because of European culture values the same things as Armenian culture. That said, however, because of its location on the fringe of Asia, near Europe, with more historical and cultural affinities to Turkey and Greece than to Iraq and Iran, it is often considered "European". Turkey, in the same way, is considered "European" because of the prominent historical role previous incarnations of Anatolian governments have played in the history of Europe, eventhough Anatolia is clearly in Asia. Tomer 18:43, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

Flag

Votes: 43
Support: 40%

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

Support

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

Oppose

1. Cantus
2. Nikola 03:55, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
3. Pædia - Please see comment.
4. Moravice 23:50, 1 June 2004 (UTC)
5. Arnejohs 10:50, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
6. "DICK" CHENEY 01:53, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
7. Shallot - Not really necessary.
8. Dmn 07:05, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
9. Merovingian✍Talk 01:06, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
10. Aris Katsaris 02:51, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
11. Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 18:49, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
12. Alinor - becouse not all european countries are assosiated with this flag (even in its widest formulation - Belarus, Vatican City and Kazakhstan are still not members of CoE)
13. Comrade Tassadar 09:07, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
14. CheeseDreams - it only represents 15 countries, many citizens of which object to the flags existance, and it does not represent the majority of countries in europe in any way whatsoever.
    • Which 15 do you mean? There are 25 countries in the EU, and in any case it was not the EU that invented the flag, nor does it refer solely to the EU. You need to read European flag.
15. Malyctenar 10:54, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) Used generally as EU flag, would be confusing.
16. Chris 73 Talk 12:10, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC) - none of the other Template:Africa or template:Asia have a flag. But maybe, a map can be included.
17. Teemu Leisti 22:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
18. Oppose 80.255 18:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
19. EnSamulili --EnSamulili 23:39, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
20. The European Councill is not sufficiently known or important. /Tuomas 07:27, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
21. Instantnood - a map of Europe should be used instead. 09:06, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
22. *drew 04:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) - Use European map instead.
23. Joolz 18:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) - Would cause unneccessary confusion.
24. Valentinian 14:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC) A map of Europe is a much better idea.
25. KissL 16:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
26. WikiFan04

Comments

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

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

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

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

Why this consistent desire of relating a flag to a continent? If this article is about 'The continent Europe', the first issue to look into should rather be: What is a continent? To me it seems to be some confusion here. The European Council, The European Union, The European Football Association, etc. is all fine, - but it does not place any labels on the continent as such. It is the other way around.--Arnejohs 06:25, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think Docu wanted to say Council of Europe. The Council of Europe has agreed on some European Symbols. Some European countries are not member of the Council of Europe, though. --213.47.57.154 23:15, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. Thanks for correcting this, making my point even clearer. --Arnejohs 08:15, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, thank you for pointing this out. I edited my note above. -- User:Docu

Interestingly, the Council of Europe states:

The European emblem may be used only if:

- there is no likelihood of the user of the emblem being confused with the European Community or the Council of Europe;

- the emblem is not used in connection with objectives or activities which are incompatible with the aims and principles of the European Community or of the Council of Europe.

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

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

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

Even if all countries of the world participated in the Council of Europe, I'm not sure I'd agree to the usage of the flag. Almost every country in the world participates in the United Nations, but I'd still prefer it if we kept the concept of organizations separate from other concepts like continents and geography. What if the Council disbanded or members left? We don't have the flag of the African Union in Template:Africa. Aris Katsaris 09:17, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

I was almost persuaded by this argument and had contemplated changing my vote. After checking the websites for the Council of Europe and the African Union, I was able to reconfirm my orginal position. The Council of Europe adopted this flag not only for its organization but specifically for the purpose of providing Europe with a symbol with which Europeans can identify. The fact that the European Union has adopted this flag as well is a testament to the fact that this is not just a flag of an organization. This is in contrast to the flag of the African Union which does not make any claim that the flag represents anything other than its own organization. It also states that the flag sybmolizes the hopes and aspirations for African unity. It seems to me that as an encyclopedia, we have an obligation to look beyond our own personal beliefs and opinions about whether or not Europe should have a flag, emblem or symbol and simply decide if the flag is used or recognized as a symbol for Europe. It would seem hard to deny this fact on an empirical basis. Parmaestro 11:37, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of the CoE's original intentions, the flag is not generally used or recognized as a symbol for Europe. It's generally used and recognized as a symbol of the European Union. Aris Katsaris 17:38, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

I notice in the United States article that under official languages, English is listed as a de facto official language. Would you also be in favor of removing references to English there since English is in no way an offical language and legally does not enjoy a status different from other languages? Parmaestro 11:37, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Only if you could convince me of the fact that English is "in no way an official language", which I doubt you could. In what language is the US Constitution written, and in which language are the US laws passed by the US Congress? Aris Katsaris 17:38, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

The proposal to declare English the official language of the United States has been repeatedly made, and repeatedly defeated.... Septentrionalis 17:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

CLOSED POLLS

Russia & Turkey

Votes: 16
Support: 100%

Include in list.

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

Support

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

Oppose

1. Your signature

Comments

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

Azerbaijan

Votes: 15
Support: 80%

Include in list.

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Comments

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

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

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

Absolutely right, its a shame to include Azerbaijan, while excluding the ancient european countries Armenia and Georgia. -- Europa 20:23, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Maybe, but #Whitaker's Almanack 2004, World Book, and CIA - The World Factbook disagree. Pædia 15:11, 2004 Jun 17 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Svalbard

Votes: 12
Support: 100%

List as a dependency.

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

Support

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

Oppose

1. Your signature

Comments

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

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

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

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

Cyprus

Votes: 23
Support: 70%

Include in list.

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Comments

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

Being part of the EU does not of itself make it a part of Europe. Is French Guyana part of Europe because it is in the EU, or was Greenland part of Europe until it left the EU? Warofdreams 18:42, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Good point by Warofdreams. I espescially find the twist with Greenland very convincing. Moravice

I have to disagree with Warofdreams. Membership in the EU is available exclusively to European states. Hence, any state in the European Union must be in Europe. Greenland and French Guyana were/are in the European Union because they belonged to a European state and can not be members in their own right. A very different case from Cyprus. Parmaestro 20:12, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• ad Hokanomono:

  Perhaps. We agree that Middle East (or Near East) is in SW Asia and NE Africa, but never Europe. Pædia 16:03, 2004 Jun 17 (UTC)

  Who's "we" here? The "Near East" was frequently used to include the Balkans. john k 16:55, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  "We" is Pædia and all who agree with the definition(s). When did "Near East" refer to the Balkans? Pædia 05:42, 2004 Jun 18 (UTC)

  (And i just thought that "we" means Pædia and me...) See the article Middle East and especially the two paragraphs about the history of the notion in Britain and in other European countries and maybe Talk:Middle East#European use of the Term and Talk:Southwest Asia#Less ambiguous?. The term Near East is so much relative to the position that you really can see a difference in semantics between France and Germany. It's exciting. --Hokanomono 18:55, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)

  Thanks. According to Merriam-Webster Online, a former usage of "Near East" was "the Ottoman Empire at its greatest extent" (including the Balkans). Pædia 19:53, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)

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

Because they joined both organisations. What's your question?

Cyprus and Malta are just two of six EU-members that are not member of the NATO. --Hokanomono 08:50, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)

Azores

Votes: 12
Support: 0%

List as a dependency.

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

Support

1. Your signature

Oppose

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

Comments

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

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

Åland

Votes: 15
Support: 27%

List as a dependency.

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Comments

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

Actually, it has not been autonomousguaranteed autonomy since 1951. Please read #Dependencies. Pædia 06:53, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Ummm... the writers of Åland appear to disagree :o) I'd previously read about it elsewhere on WP as enjoying some level of autonomy. Zoney 22:13, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

You might be correct to call it autonomous, but no authoritative resource recognises it as a dependency. Pædia 20:22, 2004 Jun 3 (UTC)

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

Jan Mayen

Votes: 12
Support: 100%

List as a dependency.

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

Support

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

Oppose

1. Your signature

Comments

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

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

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

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

Akrotiri and Dhekelia

Votes: 20
Support: 70%

Include in list.

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

Support

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

Oppose

1. Moravice Nov 13, 2004 - Cyprus is not in Europe. As it is listed Armenia and others should be to. A clear definition is very much needed. These bases should anyway not be listed as dependencies here, if they are what should we leave out.
2. Pædia
3. CheeseDreams As sovereign territories of the crown, they have the same status as the Isle of Man and Jersey.

   Further to a comment posted on my talk page, I strongly reassert my opposition. The CIA world factbook is not an unbiased source is it? CheeseDreams 19:54, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

4. Since when was Cyprus not in Europe? But Ezhiki is right. No bases. Dr Zen 11:37, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
5. Trilobite (Talk) 17:12, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC) No bases
6. Malyctenar 10:54, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) Too peculiar and obscure to clutter the template. No bloody bases pasaran!

Comments

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

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

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

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

Sovereign Base Areas Cyprus states:

The boundaries of the SBAs were drawn to include the major military installations on the ground and to exclude villages and towns.... However, as a result of the coup of 1974 and other developments over the years, about 7,000 Cypriots now live in the SBAs. In addition, approximately 7,800 military and UK-based civilian personnel and their dependants work or live on the Bases.

The SBAs are retained as military bases – not “colonial ” territories. This is the basic philosophy of their administration as stated by HMG in 1960 in the policy declaration usually known as 'Appendix O' . This stated that the policy objectives for the administration of the areas were to be:

a. Effective use of the SBAs as military bases;

b. Full co-operation with the Republic of Cyprus;

c. Protection of the interests of those resident or working in the SBAs.

...

Because the SBAs are primarily required as military bases and not ordinary dependent territories, the Administration reports to the Ministry of Defence in London. It has no formal connection with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or the British High Commission in Nicosia, although there are close informal links with both offices on policy matters.

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

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

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

Explanatory footers

Votes: 33
Support: 73%

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Comments

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

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

How about?

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

AOL. --Shallot

Georgia

Votes: 66
Support: 70%

Include in list.

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

Support

1. Zoney 09:10, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
2. James F. (talk) 09:32, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
3. SimonP 02:56, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
4. Nikola 03:55, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
5. Matthewmayer 10:58, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
6. Moravice 23:50, 1 June 2004 (UTC)
7. Cantus - I changed my vote. There are two possible definitions of the European/Asian boundary. Both should be taken into account.
8. Shallot - Include, with some footnote.
9. Dittaeva 18:54, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
10. Aris Katsaris 21:10, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
11. Europa 03:39, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC) - Georgia is historically and culturally a part of Europe
12. Joao Campos 18:29, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
13. Alinor - if it has territory NORTH of the Caucaus watershed - undisputably geographicaly in Europe. If it does not have - like Cyprus it should be included for cultural, historical, political reasons (with footer note of course)
14. Comrade Tassadar 09:05, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
15. Ejrrjs 21:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
16. J.K. ] 08:59, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
17. Andre (talk) 00:31, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
18. A D Monroe III 20:14, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) - The eastern border of Europe is ill-defined; we should be inclusive
19. Include, with footnote. Bart133 (t) 00:05, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
20. Nightstallion 12:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
21. Beta_M , | (Ë-Mail) 18:35, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
22. Dmcdevit 03:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
23. Wild ride 04:31, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
24. Micga 00:47, 04 mar 2005 (CET)
25. --Monkbel 11:07, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
26. --Tabib 15:04, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
27. Jacoplane 03:46, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
28. Instantnood 09:06, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
29. Leonardo 04:17, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
30. --THOTH 17:40, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) - I'm actually against Georgia, Armenia, Adjerbaijan and Khazakstan being considered as being in Europe - but if the latter two are then I will vote for the former - my vote switches if the latter two are no longer considered European. I'm also generally against Turkey being considered European.
31. Why not? Juppiter 00:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
32. Joolz 18:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
33. Geographically it is according to some sources. Because the present government is aiming at an EU-membership and the country is already member of the Council of Europe, I think the country is within Europe. Maartenvdbent 20:31, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
34. BJS Georgia is historically and culturally European state.
35. -- Stereotek 14:40, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
36. Obviously.  Grue  10:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
37. Why have footers 1 & 2 if we're not prepared to use them? Doops 18:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
38. Theathenae 29 June 2005 13:26 (UTC)
39. SouthernComfort 3 July 2005 05:20 (UTC)
40. Valentinian 14:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC) Include. If Georgia has territory in Europe, use the same footnote as used with Turkey / Russia. If not, use the footnote used for Cyprus. In principle, I oppose the inclusion of both Turkey and Azerbaijan in this list (though this has apparently been decided upon) since the larger part of either country is located in Asia. For cultural reasons, I include Russia and Cyprus in Europe. Since I consider both Georgia and Armenia to be more European than Azerbaijan it makes no sense to exclude Georgia and Armenia while including Azerbaijan.
41. Lapsed Pacifist 16:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
42. KissL 15:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
43. If Turkey is European, Georgia is; I see no classification that can include one and exclude the other. Septentrionalis 17:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
44. Why are we even doing this? It seems rediculous to me. This is unwiki. Phroziac (talk)
45. -- Elisson • Talk 17:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
46. WikiFan04

Oppose

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

Comments

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

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

It wants itself to be considered part of Europe, so why not be inclusive about it? Historically Georgia's shores were a part of European trade and civilisation. Aris Katsaris 21:10, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC).

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

This must be addressed in any poll.

Zoney 18:31, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Is it the policy of Misplaced Pages to use votes presented in a poll to make decisions on questions like this? How could a majority in an accidental poll force a flag on a continent? I refuse to even participate in such a poll. --- Arnejohs 09:52, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't believe such polls as this are binding - however, the intention is most likely to attempt to gauge levels of support for various stances and attempt a compromise or consensus edit. It is probably of worth to include your stances – you could I suppose just list your votes in the comments section to emphasis the low level of authority you accredit this poll! Zoney 23:32, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

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

Also with Britannica's image Cyprus belongs to Europe as well as all islands in the Mediterranean Sea, which might be more consistent than other definitions which include for example all islands of the Aegean Sea (even those very close to Anatolia), but count the Balearic Islands as African and Cyprus as Asian. Being more consistent however doesn't nescessarily mean less arbitrary. Maybe we will just have to include all countries which could be considered European and state somewhere that this inclusion should never be used as a reference in other discussions. --Hokanomono 12:04, 2004 Jun 5 (UTC)

What source includes the Balearic Islands with Africa? Are not Sicily or Sardinia closer? Pædia 19:48, 2004 Jun 8 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I think I was mistaken. (I don't know why. Probably, I misread a map. Maybe it was http://www.europa.eu.int/abc/maps/members/spain_de.htm) --Hokanomono 19:09, 2004 Jun 15 (UTC)

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

Whitaker's Almanack 2004

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

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

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

World Book

Europe:

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

Asia:

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

Britannica

Europe:

second smallest of the world's continents (after Australia), composed of the westward-projecting peninsulas of Eurasia and occupying nearly one-fifteenth of the world's total land area. It is bordered on the north by the Arctic Ocean, on the west by the Atlantic Ocean, and on the south (west to east) by the Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea, the Kuma-Manych Depression, and the Caspian Sea. The continent's eastern boundary (north to south) runs along the eastern Ural Mountains and the Zhem River. Europe's islands and archipelagoes include Novaya Zemlya, Iceland, the British Isles, Corsica, Sardinia, Sicily, Crete, Malta, and Cyprus.

As to the territorial limits of Europe, while these seem clear on its three seaward flanks, they have been uncertain and hence much debated on the east, where the continent merges, without sundering physical limits, with parts of western Asia. Even to the north and west, many island groups—Svalbard (Spitsbergen), the British Isles, the Faeroes, Iceland, and the Madeira and Canary islands—that are European by culture are included in the continent, although Greenland is conventionally allocated to North America. Further, the Mediterranean coastlands of North Africa and southwestern Asia also exhibit some European physical and cultural affinities, and Turkey and Cyprus, while geologically Asian, possess elements of European culture and may, perhaps, be regarded as parts of Europe. Eastward limits, now adopted by most geographers, assign the Caucasus Mountains to Asia and are taken to run southward along the eastern foot of the Urals and then across the Mugodzhar Hills, along the Emba River, and along the northern shore of the Caspian Sea. West of the Caspian, the European limit follows the Kuma-Manych Depression and the Kerch Strait to the Black Sea. Map.

Asia:

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

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

Yet, Britannica cannot decide on the boundary. The Mount Elbrus article labels it: The highest peak in the Caucasus and in Europe. Pædia 19:48, 2004 Jun 8 (UTC)

Yet, that's from Britannica Concise... the Mount Elbrus article in the formal encyclopedia says nothing about it being in either Europe or Asia. --Cantus 21:15, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

They also state in their Europe article, that Turkey and Cyprus, while geologically Asian, possess elements of European culture and may, perhaps, be regarded as parts of Europe., which is interesting because earlier in the article they assigned Cyprus to Europe. --Cantus 21:15, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Another source

According to this totally anonymous source, the limits are:

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

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

Other European footer

Hi there,

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

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

Zoney 21:31, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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

Category

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

Unneeded polls about including a territory into Europe

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

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

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

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

Cantus rv ???

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

When you have 11 votes for support there is no way to change the outcome of the poll. Do the math. —Cantus…☎ 08:53, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

My omission. OK. But still, it is possible (tough not likely) that the 12th, 13th and 14th are opposing and the 15th and 16th voters (both oposing) vote very quickly one after another, so the result gets below 70% and then the next voters can completely reverse it.Alinor 09:50, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So, I think that it is best to leave the votes open until the rules are formally met, not mathematicaly. This (my edits) will make no harm and is more fair. Alinor 09:52, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Another point about strict following the rules (waiting until 15 people have voted - and reopening current pools with less than 15 votes) - as you can see some people have changed their vote - becouse of new information, etc. So, even when 11 votes are enough to get 70% out of 15 - maybe the 12th, 13th and/or 14th voter (these 'new voters' can hypotheticaly can vote 'against the first 11 voters') will give such arguments that convince some of the first 11 to change their vote and so - later the case can be decided in contrary to the current CLOSED decision (if 15th, 16th, etc. voters reach the reversed-70%). My point - pools with less than 15 positions are CLOSED AGAINST THE RULES. We should wait until the 15th vote before closing. I will now cast my vote in the closed sections with less than 15 votes. Later, if no one objects I may reopen them, so that we can finish them by the rules.Alinor 17:44, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Spain and Portugal