Talk:List of European countries by area/Archive 1

Information Source

I got all the information for this article from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe, which is from this website. Feel free to make changes to if you see any mistakes, thank you. Andydrew1234 08:03, 9 September 2001 (UTC)

Double Entry?

Finland is two times in the list. why?

The other Finland you saw was the supposed to be the island state of Åland, with Finland in brackets. I copied from the list of countries and their areas from the Europe page of Wikipedia. They just got messed around with. Anyway I fixed it by adding Åland's area to the finland area. Andydrew1234

Questionable Accuracy

The largest country that should be in that table is Turkey, with 783,562 km^2. Before I made the edit, it was listed way below that, at 20,000 km^2. Someone with some time at hand should go over these values and make sure they are accurate.

Graffitici 20:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The largest country should be Russia, whether in whole or in part. The value for Turkey appears to represent only the portion of Turkey in Europe -- Trakya, northwest of the Bosporus. I have restored the prior entry and made other minor fixes, namely regarding Europe's total area. Corticopia 21:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo

Why is Kosovo included?88.86.3.235 (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It should not be included in a list of European COUNTRIES, but some editors are very forceful about including it. Of course it then throws the whole list out, and makes wikipedia's integrity questionable at best. Dr Rgne (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

this case is disputed you know, what makes you think you are right and we are wrong, at least I'm trying to be neutral -- CD 11:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not recognized by the UN as a nation, has no UN seat, and is unrecognized by the vast majority of nations and international bodies. By the same token South Ossetia is disputed, but we do not include it as it is not officially recognized. Therefore unless Kosovo becomes recognized by the United Nations as an independent state it has no place in this list. Dr Rgne (talk) 11:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the list of "European countries by area", and not the list of "UN-member European countries by area". UN is a political organization. Being recognized or not has nothing to do with legality (as specified by UN PCJ Kosovo decision). Hence, for me, Kosovo must be placed in another line. Closing the eye only makes day the night to the closing party itself. Kosovo is a member of International Olympic Committee (IOC) and will compete in 2016 Rio Olympics. Kosovo is a member of FIBA, and hence the countries that does not recognize are compulsory to play with Kosovo in case they are matched. IOC membership requires "International Recognition". Hence, UN is not the only way to prove that International Recognition. It is just one of the ways among several others.88.224.16.134 (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that this talk thread was started in 2008, when Kosovo had recently declared its independence as its status was far more disputed. In 2016, it's still not universally recognized, but as summarized by the Kosovo page: As of 8 July 2016, 109 UN states recognise the independence of Kosovo and it has become a member country of the IMF and World Bank as the Republic of Kosovo.[120][121] The ICJ concluded unanimously in 2010 that Kosovo's declaration of independence of 17 February 2008 did not violate general international law.[122] This is not the place to determine a territory's legality, but in light of its current status I propose Kosovo be included on its own line, possibly with some caveat in the notes column. I would also list Serbia without Kosovo's area and order it accordingly, but would be fine with mentioning the area including Kosovo in the notes. The latter part, whether to list Serbia with or without Kosovo, seems to be the subject of some edit warring, and it would seem useful to try to establish a consensus on the matter. Laanders (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

At the risk of confusing the issue, I'll make a mention of a perhaps similar case, namely that of Nagorno-Karabakh, which since the 1990s is a disputed area within the territory of Azerbaijan. It is de facto not under Azerbaijan's control, but to my knowledge it is also not recognized as independent by any other country. For that reason I would not, unlike Kosovo, include Nagorno-Karabakh in the table, but I don't mind the anonymous edit made to Azerbaijan's entry, where the country's area without the disputed region is mentioned in the notes.Laanders (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and included Kosovo again (it has been in and out) with the note that it is a partially recognized state. As a parallel, Palestine is included on the corresponding list for Asia; both states have similar international recognition (100+ countries). I think a principle of generosity might be generally helpful in the case of states where the international community is strongly divided; it is trivial to disregard a disputed area you don't support, but more of a fuss if you have to look it up elsewhere.Laanders (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that's a good solution. Thanks! Chrisahn (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Georgia

And which part of Georga is considered geographically "Pure Europe"? In fact, Georgia geographically isn't part of Europe...Fernando magellan (talk) 17:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Caucasus

Georgia and Azerbaijan are on the list, but Armenia is left out. Cellmaker (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

See Europe-Asia border. Georgia and Azerbaijan each have a tiny bit of their area in Europe; Armenia is geographically entirely in Asia. Only parts within Europe are listed in this article. SiBr₄ (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Kazakhstan

Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.44.176.115 (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Because according to the modern definition of the border between Europe and Asia, a small part of western Kazakhstan is in Europe. SiBr₄ (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

pointless graph

what is the point of the graph on this article? I tells the reader nothing 2.25.134.215 (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine needs to be updated

Since the seceding of Crimea, it's no longer part of the Ukraine state. Also, Russia should be updated since the ascension of Crimea to Russia.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.15.130 (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Only Russia consider Crimea a part of the Russian Federation. 109.207.196.90 (talk) 08:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

74.14.15.130, only your brain needs to be updated. 46.63.38.5 (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

According to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262 Crimea internationally considered as part of Ukraine 109.49.168.19 (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Russia and 8 other countries recognise Crimea's annexation. Read this: Political_status_of_Crimea — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melaneas (talk • contribs) 17:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Seven others, and none of them exactly international heavyweights. It doesn't change the general pattern that the transfer is consider illegitimate.--Batmacumba (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, now Crimea is controlled by Russia, and Ukraine won't probably take it back easily. Plus, the majority of the local population are Russians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melaneas (talk • contribs) 07:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the current version is good. The international community strongly supports the stance that Crimea and Sevastopol are still part of Ukraine. At the same time, both are de facto not under Ukrainian control. The article lists both versions of the country's area, with a link to a page that explains the details. It also makes no difference in the ordering; Ukraine is the second largest country in Europe regardless of which area is used. I don't think we can do more in a simple geographical list page. Laanders (talk) 08:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Should we update this now? It's been a few years, Ukraine obviously isn't returning to Ukraine, and now Ukraine is the third largest country in Europe by size after losing a lot of the east. I understand there are a number of committees that think Crimea should be part of Ukraine however the reality is you need a passport to enter Crimea from Ukraine and not from Russia. Ukraine calling Crimea part of Ukraine is like China saying Taiwan is still part of China. We could also just put in two regions for Ukraine, which would be the best of both worlds. Haxonek (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree-let's keep this Melaneas (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC).

France largest in Europe??

Considering that the countries are said to be "ranked by the area of parts within Europe only", shouldn't the area values for France be switched and it moved to after Ukraine? --Khajidha (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Exactly the point I wanted to make. How come France is ranked including it's overseas territories? 130.180.10.142 (talk) 08:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

No Hassannuradan (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

How to evaluate cities or countries which are split between Asia and Europe?

There is a Request for Comment which affects this article at the page Talk:List of European cities by population. The question is, "In articles which rank European cities or countries in order by population or area, should the entire city or country be counted, or only the portion which is in Europe?" Your input there would be appreciated. MelanieN (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

It is an antique view to allocate the countries to a geographic defined Europe or Asia. This is a kind of a racist definition. Europe up to the Ural is the land of the white race, the Turks do not belong to the white race, so they are excluded. The white race in the east are the Caucasians. There are only some countries within Europe which are not "quite white" like the Finns, the Hungarian, the Muslimes in Bosnia and Albania and some tribes in the north of Scandinavia like the Lapps. It would be more serious to stop this "geographical" discussion which is a racist discussion. Most of the naive people do not know the real background. This segregation is only racist in Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:4A80:3:420:279C:9A12:E60E:49CA (talk) 04:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with race. On the contrary race would be an argument for including Siberia, with its majority population of white Russians; and of course Bosnians, Hungarians and Finns are white. Europe being considered different from Asia is due to a combination of cultural, historical and religious factors. There is no clear "racial" divide along the land borders between Europe and Asia. But its outside the scope of Wikipedia to discuss whether counting Europe and Asia as two continents makes sense, we should just note that this is the common practice and follow it.

When it comes to geography the only proper criteria in an Encyklopaedia is the geographical, so only cities which are actually in Europe should be included in the List of European cities by population. Otherwise the title would be misleading. As a transcontinental city Istanbul should be included mentioning both its total population and the population of its European part.--Batmacumba (talk) 11:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Needs more corrections

Moldova has more land mass than Turkey? You serious? Turkey is - at the very least - 5 times bigger! At the same time, Georgia is only mildly bigger than Moldova...Unless of course, you're counting Turkey's European land mass, than, it may be accurate... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.74.15.163 (talk) 09:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

sorry, BUT Georgian area is 69,700 and not 69,000--95.104.35.137 (talk) 12:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Accuracy

First, Kazakhstan says "includes crimea." Crimea at the moment is de facto part of Russia. Also, the area listed for Russia does not match the area listed for Russia on Russia's wikipedia page. 5th October 18:24 CDT

That was all vandalism. I fixed it. Chrisahn (talk) 01:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Logical error in the article

There is big logical error in this article.

First it must be decided if we need this list by the political definition of Europe, or geographical definition of Europe.

In the header section it is stated that the list is prepared with the geographical definition of Europe. I think that's why only geographically European parts of Kazakhstan, Russia and Turkey are calculated in the ranking.

But according to this definition there are two problems:

1) In the list, whole land mass of Georgia and Azerbaijan is taken into consideration. However they are also transcontinental countries, and if we are making a calculation based on geographical Europe, the same rule apply to them.

2) Again whole land mass of Armenia and Cyprus are taken into consideration. There 100% located in Asia. If this list is based on geographical Europe, they should be removed from the list.

This list should be re-organized from a NPOV. I'm adding the necessary tag to the article page.

Siğilli Kurbağa (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Transcontinental countries: total area or area in Europe

I think this ties in with the NPOV flag, but there seem to be conflicting views whether transcontinental countries should be listed with their full area, or only the area contained within Europe. The article text indicates the latter: "Transcontinental countries below are marked with an asterisk (*) and are ranked by the area of parts within Europe only." However the table does not reflect this, indeed displaying the full area of multiple countries, including notably Russia, Turkey and Kazakhstan.

My opinion is that since the context of the page is geographical land area in Europe, the table should be ordered by area within Europe, as the article text also indicates is the idea. Turkey is probably the most prominent example of the difference; it makes little sense to list it as Europe's third largest nation, when only 3% of the country, an area smaller than Belgium, is actually in Europe. Kazakhstan is in a similar situation, with only an estimated 10% of its area typically considered to be in Europe (taking the Ural mountain/river definition; by other definitions Kazakhstan is entirely in Asia.) Russia is of course also mostly located in Asia, but perhaps it matters less in that case since it will top the list regardless.

I note however that previous edits to this effect have been reverted without comment, so rather than simply start editing, I am posting this to try to establish a consensus before moving ahead. Is there an overall policy or other type of rule that supports including non-European territories on a page of this type, that I am unaware of? Laanders (talk) 10:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

If there are no dissenting opinions, I will reorder the table to reflect the sizes of areas within Europe. Laanders (talk) 08:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Please do, the current ranking is ridiculous.--Batmacumba (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I made the changes proposed by Laanders. See discussion at #European. Chrisahn (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Nice job, though the Asian parts of Azerbaijan and Georgia are still included. I removed Cyprus and Armenia as they aren't in (geographical) Europe.--Batmacumba (talk) 11:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, it would be nice to only list the European areas of Azerbaijan and Georgia, but I looked in several different places (other Wikipedia pages, CIA world factbook, etc.) and didn't find any numbers for their Asian/European areas. Until someone finds reliable data, I don't see what we could do to improve the article in that respect. Well, we should probably add notes saying that only small parts of these countries are in Europe. Chrisahn (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for that, Crisahn. I had difficulties finding time to make the intended changes, glad someone else stepped up. The article/table is much improved now. Laanders (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

It is ridiculous that Armenia is taken entirely in Europe and Georgia is only partially. If you extend Europe to include Armenia, then entire Georgia and maybe Azerbaijan has to be in Europe entirely too. This definition also puts eastern part of Turkey in Europe as Armenia and Georgia shares the same large valley with Turkey.

Denmark

Batmacumba - I'm a bit confused on the calculations for Denmark. The wiki page Denmark shows the area being 42,925.46 km^2 using this official stat. With the Faroe Islands that (42,925.46 + 1,399) = 44,324.46. However, I'm skeptical of including the Faroe Islands if the Danish government doesn't include it. List of sovereign states and dependencies by area has a note that the islands are not includes as the UN does not include them in their stats. Please ping me in reply. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The realm of Denmark is not a federation, but a unitary state (according to its 1953 constitution), which has devolved (quite far reaching) powers to two autonomous areas. Constitutionally they are as much (or as little) part of Denmark as New Caledonia is part of France, Scotland is part of UK or the Åland Islands are part of Finland. There is no need to complicate this unnecessarily. If we want to be consistent (and this list should either be deleted or become consistent, its pretty useless as it is now) the Faroe Islands should be included in Denmark as they are a part of the state called the Kingdom of Denmark and located within Europe. Whether or not the Danish government choses to present them as part of Denmark (that is a matter of political sensibilities). The only sensible principle for whether area x is part of country is to use the legal definition (at least for well-organized states).--Batmacumba (talk) 07:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The area used in Statstikbanken varies from year to year and their criteria are unspecified. They have 43 098.31 for all of Denmark for 2010. I am not sure what they measure, but the changes in area bigger than should be possible due to natural fluctuations in coastline etc. Could we please disregard this as a source and just go by the old number? The table you are referring to is focused on area of regions and municipalities and at least one island group is administered by the Ministry of Defence.

One other aspect is that strictly speaking there is no state called "Denmark" its the Kingdom of Denmark, which is a unitary state with a common parliament, but comprised of three countries and with devolved powers to Greenland and the Faroes. The Danish Folketing often legislates for "Denmark proper" with an addition that "this law does not apply to Greenland and the Faroes", but Denmark doesn't have its own parliament, just as England doesn't have one and some laws are given "for the Realm" with no exceptions. Like England its not a state, just the bulk of a multinational country. Given that Denmark proper has 98% of the population this is usually ignored as a minor detail, but shouldn't be in this context.--Batmacumba (talk) 07:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I found the error. From 1 January 2011 onwards they only include so-called "matriculated areas", which are the areas owned by someone and (therefore) exclude a number of lakes. As lakes are generally included we should go by the pre-2011 number of 43,098. Even if the territory varies a bit due to erosion of coastal areas and land-fills etc. this will be more accurate than the post-2011 numbers from Statistikbanken.--Batmacumba (talk) 09:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Could we agree on this definition?

If this list is to be useful we need to agree on exactly what it measures. I suggest:

1) To use the modern geographical definition of Europe (and thereby disregard political and cultural definitions entirely).

2) Define states as they are constitutionally defined and not how they are mentioned in other sources, even by the UN (use a strictly formalistic approach).

3) Only disregard b) if a state has lost effective control of part of its territory due to conquest, secession etc. and this loss of control has been either recognized by the state losing the territory, or going on for an extended period of time (more than 5 years). If we can not agree on the second criteria (as its felt to bee too arbitrary) revert to the constitutional definition (even if it means an area can be part of two states).

4) Only include the area of transcontinental states located within Europe and not complicating matters by stating how much of the state is located outside of Europe (this can be looked up elsewhere and isn't relevant in this context).

5) Include lakes and waterways in the territory of a state.--Batmacumba (talk) 10:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

European

I think it would be less confusing if we would exclude the Asian and other non-European territories in this article, as the title concerns Europe. Carol (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, but not sure we need yet another section about this issue. We already got: "Transcontinental countries: total area or area in Europe". And I proposed a concrete solution along those lines above. Supporting one of the proposals already made would be more constructive.--Batmacumba (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Batmacumba. The proposals that are already made are not so obvious, could they be rephrased in e.g. a poll format? I would simply subtract the Asian areas from the current ones, for the rest all can stay the same. Carol (Talk) 17:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I would prefer if we could agree on a definition of exactly what areas should be included - like the one I gave above. The Asia/Europe issue isn't the only issue.--Batmacumba (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, I doubt anyone would object to you deducting the Asian part and reordering the ranking. Its a lot of work and someone needs to do it (Laanders said he would, but hasn't gotten around to it).--Batmacumba (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I think we should basically revert the article to the way it was on 9 February 2016 when it only showed the areas in Europe. On 13 February 2016, a dummy user vandalized the article and put in all the Asian areas. But: There were several helpful edits since then, and we shouldn't delete them. What should we do about them? Chrisahn (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

All right, I went ahead and undid the changes by the dummy user Trjstan, but kept all other changes since then. I hope I didn't damage anything. Chrisahn (talk) 22:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Chrisahn. I think it looks a lot more sensible now! Carol (Talk) 23:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Chrisahn (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Cyprus

If Russia, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan are included as part of Europe so is cyprus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.167.146 (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

There is a customary geographical definition of Europe (see modern definition of the border between Europe and Asia) and it differes from the cultural or political definitons. Only small parts of Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan are part of Europe, Russia west of Ural is in Europe. Cyprus is politically and culturally European, but is located south of the Anatolian peninsula and therefore geographically Asian.--Batmacumba (talk) 04:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

This is only arbitrarily define. Countries that border with the middle east and central Asia cant be part of Europe. Cyprus is an island in the Mediterranean sea which is a lot closer. Most people agreed that island in the Mediterranean sea are European. Cyprus is part of the EU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.167.146 (talk) 09:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Cyprus is included in the graph! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.167.146 (talk) 10:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, thats a problem with the graph, not an argument for including Cyprus in Europe. As a European I would count Cyprus as Europe, but I would do the same with Armenia/Georgia and exclude all of Kazakhstan. Its no use going by what we each feel is most logical. We have to use objective criteria, even if they are arbitrarily defined. Some of the Greek North Aegean Islands and the Dodecanese lie off the coast of the Asian part of Turkey (on the Asian continental shelf), but Cyprus is a country which entirely lay on the Asian continental shelf, so geographically its an Asian country.--Batmacumba (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Why go so far east and then exclude Cyprus. Where exactly is this definition of Europe from we need it to be reference and is this agreed globally as the definition of Europe. The total doesn't add up on the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.167.146 (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean "go so far east"? Its among other things the National Geographic definition and the most common in anglophone countries, there is no "globally agreed" definition of Europe. As you can see we have spend an enormous amount of time discussing what should be included in Europe and settled on a definition, so its not really productive reopening this matter.--Batmacumba (talk) 14:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Most of the European countries agree that Cyprus is part of Europe that's why we are part of the EU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.167.146 (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Technically, Asia and Europe are the same continent- the separatios between them is mainly due to historical reasons. Melaneas (talk) 23:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we should handle Cyprus in the same way as Georgia is done at the moment? That is to say, include it at the bottom of the list with "n/a" for area and a comment of the total area including Asian part. Both countries are similarly borderline cases that could easily be believed to belong to either continent, as evidenced by various edits, most likely intended as helpful. Laanders (talk) 09:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

There is, however, no Asian or European part of Cyprus. Either the whole island is part of Europe (all islands in the Mediterranean are parts of Europe) or part of Asia (located between Asia Minor and the Levant). The debate over Cyprus is unrelated to the island being divided into two polities. Its a matter of whether you go by the (arbitrary) traditional definition, or the logical geographical definition. There could be a note, but not one resembling the Georgian.--Batmacumba (talk) 09:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I have inserted a definition section. I think that is a better solution as it doesn't clutter the table.--Batmacumba (talk) 10:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

My comparison was based on the fact that in the current version, there is no European part of Georgia either. But of course the boundary is more arbitrary than with an island. In any case, I like the definition section since it goes further in explaining the table. We should even take it a step further and specify the definition (the Bosphorus, Greater Caucasus Range, Ural Mountains etc.) Of course we should base that on a good source; I've had a hard time finding a good one in the past. Laanders (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The difference is that a small part of Georgia is in Europe (which is why its included in the list). We just haven't been able to find a source for the exact territory of the European part of Georgia.--Batmacumba (talk) 21:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's a matter of definition of course, but as detailed in my post of September 26 under "Please don't make changes", based on the definitions and sources given on Georgia's wiki page, its northern border runs along the crest of the Greater Caucasus range, which is also a border between Europe and Asia. So there's a good case none of Georgia is in Europe and therefore to remove it from the list entirely, but it was left in to avoid confusion, which I thought might be an approach similarly usable in the Cyprus case. But again, I like simply giving a definition, then we can address all borderline cases there. Laanders (talk) 08:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, In that case it should be treated like Armenia (the text says "roughly" and I thought there were some tiny exceptions we just couldn't identify). The Quba & Khachmaz region in Azerbaijan seems to be in "geographical Europe", so Azerbaijan is another matter.--Batmacumba (talk) 09:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I have removed Georgia to make the list consistent. I assume the 69,700 km2 were part of the total area of Europe. If they weren't it should be adjusted.--Batmacumba (talk) 09:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Cyprus is geographically not in Europe at all. It's further east than the European part of Turkey. --94.134.89.10 (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Cyprus is further East than parts of Turkey, but large parts of Russia (that clearly are in Europe) are even further East, so I don't think that's a convincing argument. See the long discussion above. -- Chrisahn (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Cyprus has NO areas in Europe. Kazakhstan and even Azerbaijan have small areas in Europe (although both are mostly within Asia. Even though Cyprus is member of the EU, it still has no parts of its area within Europe, hence it should be excluded from this list. Oddeivind (talk) 10:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Please do not make changes without prior discussion

There has been a lot of fighting over this article. Please do not make ANY changes without prior discussion. Unless they are reversals to the previous generally agree version. There is no point in unilaterally changing the size of European Russia, introducing European Basin, including Crimea in Russia etc.--Batmacumba (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a list. Lists of geographical facts do no need to be "updated" all the time. So no point in trying to "improve" it by changing facts that have been agreed upon after long discussions. WE should probably have it semi-protected, so unregistered users can not change it.--Batmacumba (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Mostly agreed, substantial and debatable changes should certainly be discussed. Regarding the recently (twice) reverted edits by QLao, I would say there are minor elements that could be kept, regarding some islands for example. Should Madeira (and the Azores) be included in Portugal's European area? At least a comment would be helpful. Similarly that Finland's (European) area includes Åland seems entirely obvious to me so I don't mind removing that comment, but whatever. Laanders (talk) 12:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The Azores are geographically in Europe, except the two westernmost islands, which are on the North American continental shelf. They are normally all counted as Europe. So is Madeira, but its closer to Africa, so I can understand why some would question that (same issue as Cyprus). Going by tectonic plates is a bit problemtic. Malta is actually on the edge of the African, so geologically in Africa, but closer to Europe. I would include both Azores and Madeira in Europe, but with a note regarding Madeira. Åland is adjacent to Finland, so unlike the Faroes no one should be in doubt, so its unnecessary with a note.--Batmacumba (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

That's very helpful information about the Portuguese islands. Do you have a good source regarding the tectonic plates? I tried searching for something earlier when looking into the Cyprus question, but wasn't particularly successful. To be honest, I'm not sure where the current area listed for Portugal even comes from. It's 91,568 sq km, but the Portugal wiki page lists 92,212 sq km (including islands), while the CIA World Factbook has it at 92,090 sq km including islands and water, and 91,470 sq km counting land area only. Meanwhile respective wiki pages has the Azores at 2,333 sq km and Madeira at 801 sq km. My best guess is the current value is either some other estimate of the total land area including islands, or it's the total area including sea but minus Madeira. Anyway, be that as it may, on your information about the islands I think the suggestion to include all the islands makes the most sense. I would use the area from the wiki page for consistency, and mention in the comment that both Madeira and the Azores are included, just to be clear in a case which (apparently) is not 100% obvious. Laanders (talk) 09:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I meant to ask as well, on what tectonic plate(s) are the Canary Islands? I considered them non-European since on visual inspection of a map they seem to clearly belong to Africa (geographically speaking, politically they are no doubt European.) If the tectonics disagree that would muck things up considerably. Laanders (talk) 09:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Crimea it should in my opinion be included in Ukraine's area since that is the internationally agreed legal status, but a comment listing the area without should be okay, in the same way as we've done with Azerbaijan (and Nagorno-Karabakh) and others. Transnistria and Novorossiya could be included in comments on disputed or out-of-control territory as well but should not be listed as states, since they have no international recognition.

Lastly I understand the will to edit Kazakhstan, Georgia and Azerbaijan since we don't have good numbers on how large their European areas are, but I think it weakens the article to name them with "no data". At least in the case of Kazakhstan we have an estimated number; perhaps such numbers could be inferred for the other two countries as well? Listing them with their full area while also concluding they are only partially in Europe is not ideal. Laanders (talk) 12:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

No, estimates is the best solution.--Batmacumba (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, going to make a brave attempt at figuring out Georgia and Azerbaijan.

First - Georgia. The wiki page for Geography of Georgia (country) is pretty helpful here: "Georgia's northern border with Russia roughly runs along the crest of the Greater Caucasus mountain range – a commonly reckoned boundary between Europe and Asia. In Philip Johan von Strahlenberg's 1730 definition of Europe, which was used by the Russian Tsars and which first set the Urals as the eastern border of the continent, the continental border was drawn from the Kuma-Manych Depression to the Caspian Sea, thereby including all of Georgia (and the whole of the Caucasus) in Asia." Based on this, there is a good case that Georgia could simply be removed from the list on this page. The complication is that credible sources conflict whether it's in Asia or Europe, but I can find no rationale on which part of it is supposed to belong to Europe. I would go with one of two options, either remove it from the list entirely, or place it at the end with no area specified and simply make a comment specifying the total area, and that the country is sometimes considered part of Europe.

Second - Azerbaijan. Applying the same criteria as above, namely that the Europe-Asia border in the area runs along the ridge of the Greater Caucasus range, one may conclude that most of Azerbaijan is in Asia, but also that there is a relatively clearly defined part of the country that is in Europe, since it extends to the north of the mountain range. Using the first map in the Geography of Azerbaijan page, along with the map of Azerbaijani regions in the Administrative divisions of Azerbaijan page, I would conclude that only the Quba-Khachmaz region with a size of 6,960 sq km belongs to Europe, while the rest of the country does not. Possibly a case could be made that some or all of the Khizi district (number 62 in the second map on the Administrative divisions page) also belongs to Europe, but I think it's much less clear and mostly confuses the issue. So my proposal would be to use 6,960 for the European area of Azerbaijan.

The problem with all of the above is of course that I don't have a solid source giving these numbers (0 for Georgia and 6,960 for Azerbaijan) but rather they are a result of what I infer from existing wiki pages. I don't think this quite qualifies as original research, precisely because all I've done is make pretty straightforward conclusions from other wiki articles, but I can certainly see why someone could raise objections. Nevertheless, for lack of better options at this time, and because listing either the full area for these countries, or none of it, also amounts to making some form of interpretations (which are additionally quite clearly wrong) I think the best course of action for now is to list Georgia and Azerbaijan in the way proposed, make appropriate comments, and stick with that until we have a better solution. Thoughts? Laanders (talk) 11:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I've edited the article along the lines of what I proposed above. I think the estimates for Azerbaijan and Georgia are a significant improvement over listing their full areas, but I am of course open to discussing any better ways of handling the "borderline" countries. Laanders (talk) 10:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Problematic changes

71.191.71.6 has made some problematic changes . They need to be reversed, but its a lot of work to do manually.--Batmacumba (talk) 19:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Unclear/dubious text

I changed Europe's territorial relation with Asia from "contingent" to "contiguous" and hope this is not controversial.

This passage also strikes me as problematic:

This list uses the modern geographical definition thus excluding Armenia, Georgia and Cyprus, which are traditionally considered part of Europe. The two Caucasus nations for political and cultural reasons, and Cyprus because all larger islands in the Mediterranean have historically been considered European, regardless of their proximity to the European mainland.

Is Armenia really "traditionally considered part of Europe"? Have "all larger islands in the Mediterranean" been "historically" considered part of Europe? I am not sure these statements are true, and they really should be sourced or altered. Adlerschloß (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I think "contiguous" is preferable. Regarding the other part, I think we overall have a problem with sourcing a clear definition of what we mean by Europe, and I think that's reflected in the quoted passage. It also complicates the recurring discussions about Cyprus and the Caucasus nations in general. Clearly there is some ambiguity in those areas and we can probably not please everyone, but it would be very helpful if we could find a source with a well defined definition that the article can lean on for future considerations. I've had little luck finding such a source before. I will try again, but if others can contribute, of course that is more than welcome. Laanders (talk) 11:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

That passage is very unwieldy & the part about Cyprus could be read to imply that it should be included. Just a tidy up of that perhaps? Merseyboyred (talk) 13:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Georgia

Laanders wrote on 20 January 2017 "based on the definitions and sources given on Georgia's wiki page, its northern border runs along the crest of the Greater Caucasus range", but this is not entirely true. The basins of at least two rivers flowing north from the Caucasus (Terek and Sulak) are partially in Georgia. If we leave the little bit of Azerbaijan north of the crest in, we ought to do the same for Georgia. It'll be hard to come up with good numbers, but the area is larger than Luxembourg;-) The strict geographical definition is a bit hard to defend (are Samos and Symi really geographically Europe?), but, unlike Azerbaijani and Armenians, Georgians themselves have felt like Europeans for a long time (e.g. in the 1950s it's Geographical Society was officially of that opinion [1]), so it would be nice for the country to be at least mentioned on this list. Afasmit (talk) 00:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm totally fine with adding back Georgia, in fact I'm pretty sure when I made the changes that referred back to that quote in October 2016, I left Georgia in the table, albeit with zero European area.

About the area given, I'm really not an authority on the matter. I simply noted that the Georgia page stated that the northern border runs "roughly" - that word got lost in my reference back from a later discussion, which you quoted - along one definition of the Europe-Asia border. Which implies that the European area of Georgia is roughly zero. Of course if we are in any way able to be more precise about that, that is certainly preferable.

Are you able to make an estimate of the area of Georgia north of the ridge? Or much better still, provide a proper source, though that has frequently been a challenge for this page, which is probably why we have so many of these discussions. Laanders (talk) 10:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The Georgian part of the Sulak basin almost exactly corresponds to the Tusheti National Park, which is a referenceable 834.5 km². I calculated the Georgian bit of the Terek river with a Google Maps Area Calculator Tool to be about 1425 km². The bit of the Tusheti National Park south of the crest is about 75 km². The total of ~2185 km² is just smaller than Luxembourg. Darn. Oodles of original research too;-) By the way, Sochi and its 3,526 km²county is in Russia, but is south of the Caucasus crest. Not that it makes much of a dent in the European Russia area, but I bet that ends to be considered part of Europe. Afasmit (talk) 21:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I have some referenced data: from [2] (be careful, this is a huge pdf file), page 162: Terek basin has an area of 1559 km2 in Georgia (I was just off by 125 km2) and the Sulak basin (page 158) has an area of 869 km2 in Georgia. So total part of Georgia in Europe is 2428 km2. Afasmit (talk) 01:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merger

It has been proposed to merge this page into List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe on the grounds that the other page contains a table of countries, and that table can be sorted by area, effectively eliminating the need for a separate page. I think this makes sense in general, however the proposed target page uses the full area of all countries, without including any information about how much of that area is actually within Europe. While this is tempting in a way, since it eliminates the need for often difficult discussions on precise definitions and borders, I think it's also misleading. It makes very little sense, as the table on the proposed target page when sorted by area, to list Kazakhstan and Turkey as the second and third largest countries in Europe, when only a small fraction of each lies within the continent. My suggestion is therefore to add a column to the table in question, named "European area" or "Area within Europe" or similar, and using the numbers from this page for that, ideally after verification. If we can do that, this page can be discarded in favour of a redirect to the other one. Laanders (talk) 12:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Worth keeping this separate article in my view. Whizz40 (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

It might be worthwhile adding a column to the main table for EU member state or not. Brandywick (talk) 07:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with merger.--Jklamo (talk) 07:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

So it's been over six months since the merger was proposed. Since my vote above is contingent on extending the table on the target page, and that has not been done, I count 2-1 in favour of keeping both pages as things currently stand. There is also no discussion on the talk page of the target article. I'll remove the merger tag unless things change in the near future. Laanders (talk) 10:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I also removed the {{duplicate}} tag that was added in the same edit as the merger tag. Chrisahn (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Antarctic territories

Seeing the added note on France's area regarding Adélie Land I find myself wondering if that is relevant, since territorial claims in Antarctica have only minimal international recognition. I'd consider them similarly as South Ossetia or Abkhazia and leave them out. Still, if in the spirit of inclusion we want to keep the mention of the French Antarctic territory then other European countries with such claims should have theirs mentioned as well. These are the United Kingdom and Norway, the latter of which claims an area seven times the Norwegian mainland. See a full list of claims here. Laanders (talk) 08:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that we should be consistent and either include all of these claims or none. I would be fine with either of these solutions.

If we choose to omit them, we should probably make that explicit and add a short explanation to the lede. I we choose to include them, we should add something like "3,085,381 when the Dependencies of Norway are included" to the entry for Norway.

Note that the article implicitly mentions the British claim since 27 April 2018: "1,976,102 when the British Overseas Territories are included", which includes 1,709,400 in Antarctica. If we decide to omit the Antarctica claims, we should probably change that sentence to something like "266,702 when the British Overseas Territories (except British Antarctic Territory) are included".

Chrisahn (talk) 12:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

That's right, I had missed the UK change. To be honest I'd just as soon remove the Antarctic territories entirely based on minimal international recognition. But consistency is the main thing of course. Laanders (talk) 12:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion, but I also lean towards excluding the Antarctic territories, so I went ahead and excluded them for France and UK. I didn't add a sentence about them to the lede. I guess it won't be necessary. Chrisahn (talk) 12:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

total

the total of areas in the article appears "10.14" million square kilometers if so it is bad that until now the explanation said 10.29 m.s.k. so i fixed 10.18 to match other internet sources. 195.192.229.100 (talk) 08:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I think there are some discrepancies in general depending on how you count water bodies and perhaps other geographical features, which probably explains why you see slight variations in areas for the same country in different sources. Of course where exactly you draw the line between Europe and Asia makes a big difference too; do you include the 9,251 sq km of Cyprus, and how much of Kazakhstan is European again? I just summed up the current sizes in the table and it adds up 10,154,200 sq km. The "total" given in the table is 10,141,183 and as observed above the Europe article gives 10,180,000. I think all of us who have been involved in this article for a while would love a definitive source for all countries' area, and especially European area, that we could fall back on. Failing that, when it comes to the total I'd be happy to round it to simply 10 million sq km. Laanders (talk) 08:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

How is Tunisia closely affiliated with europe? (ref: the map note in the article)

They are listed in green as not geographically in Europe, but closely affiliated like Cyprus and Armenia, but those two are eligible for Eurovision, Plays the European qualifications in Football and every other sport. Tunisia? Nope. What makes Tunisia anymore closely affiliated with europe than any of the other North African countries? None of which are marked in green.OSB95 (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Good point. Tunisia was added to Template:Europe and seas labelled map (a template that is included in this article page) several weeks ago without discussion. I deleted it. Chrisahn (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Spain Territory is 771,992 Area (km²)

Spain Territory is 771,992 Area (km²) Because Spain is still in The UN Decolonization Process of Western Sahara Spain administering power of Western Sahara by (de jure).

For its part, the UN has never recognized the Madrid Accords and, therefore, only recognizes Spain as the administering power. And it's still in the UN List.

Western Sahara 266,000 km2 + 505,992 when the Canary Islands, Ceuta and Melilla are included Therefore Spain Should be 2 Rank. JhonAlonso555 (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by JhonAlonso555 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I just read a bit about Western Sahara and its history, and I think its status is very different from, say, Ceuta, Martinique or Diego Garcia. Spain has no military or administrative presence (let alone power) in Western Sahara. Quote from Spanish Sahara#Present status: "The United Nations considers the former Spanish Sahara a non-self-governing territory, with Spain as the former administrative power and, since the 1970s, Morocco as the current administrative power." I'll undo these changes for now. Sorry. If we reach consensus to include them, we can add the data back in. Chrisahn (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

First I would Like to say that is not called Spanish Sahara , Currently is called West Sahara, So Please do the research with this name.

Former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan stressed, in his last report on Western Sahara, to the Security Council:

"The Security Council would not be able to invite parties to negotiate about Western Saharan autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty, for such wording would imply recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara, which was out of the question as long as no States Member of the United Nations had recognized that sovereignty".[326] Spain is still considered as the administrative power, but Morocco however is the de facto administrating power since it controls most of the territory. Morocco is Consideres Occupier and Not recognised by the UN

I would really recommend you to see the Current Official UN Website and PDF : http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgovterritories.shtml & http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/pdf/Western-Sahara2017.pdf

This territory status is very Special and not as simple as you put it. So it's still in the UN Decolonization Process Therefore Still Spanish Legally JhonAlonso555 (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

(Please indent your comments on talk pages with colons at the start of each line. See Help:Talk pages#Indentation for details. Thanks!)

I know that it's not called Spanish Sahara anymore, I just quoted from one of the many articles on the subject that happened to use that name.

Only the first part of your quote ("The Security Council would not be able... ...had recognized that sovereignty") is a quote from Annan's report, but the second part ("Spain is still considered as the administrative power... ...is Consideres Occupier and Not recognised by the UN") is, as far as I can tell, not a quote from any UN report. Where did you find it?

I agree that the status of Western Sahara is complicated, and it's not as simple as you put it. I didn't find any sources that support your claim that it's legally still Spanish.

Here's the relevant quote from http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgovterritories.shtml#foot1 :

On 26 February 1976, Spain informed the Secretary-General that as of that date it had terminated its presence in the Territory of the Sahara and deemed it necessary to place on record that Spain considered itself thenceforth exempt from any responsibility of any international nature in connection with the administration of the Territory, in view of the cessation of its participation in the temporary administration established for the Territory. In 1990, the General Assembly reaffirmed that the question of Western Sahara was a question of decolonization which remained to be completed by the people of Western Sahara.

Here's the relevant quote from http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/pdf/Western-Sahara2017.pdf :

On 26 February 1976, the Permanent Representative of Spain to the United Nations informed the Secretary-General that “the Spanish Government, as of today, definitely terminates its presence in the Territory of the Sahara and deems it necessary to place the following on record: … (a) Spain considers itself henceforth exempt from any responsibility of an international nature in connection with the administration of the said Territory, in view of the cessation of its participation in the temporary administration established for the Territory …”

Both clearly state that Spain does not have any presence in Western Sahara and does not consider itself to have any kind of responsibility for Western Sahara. Neither source supports your claim that the UN still considers Spain to be the administrative power.

It does not make sense for this article to add any area of Western Sahara to the area of Spain. It wouldn't even make sense if there were sources saying Spain should still be considered the administrative power in some sense, because Spain itself clearly does not consider Western Sahara to be part of Spain in any way. It does not make sense to add the area of country Y to the area of country X when X clearly says it doesn't want anything to do with Y anymore. Chrisahn (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Chrisahn: Spain didin't want to go to war with Morrocco over a Bunch of Sand Occupation . Therefore the Spanish King Made the Acuerdo de Madrid But this was a transfer of Land between Kings , And the real victims was the Polisario that wanted their own country so ...

For the UN not recognising the Spanish Deal is here : The United Nations considers Western Sahara to remain a Non-Sovereign Territory, awaiting formal decolonization. It recognizes that Morocco presently administers much of it de facto, but neither the General Assembly nor any other UN body has ever recognized this as constituting sovereignty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrid_Accords#International_status_of_the_accords

So it's in a legal Limbo until awaiting formal decolonization Spain administering power of Western Sahara by (de jure)

Do you have any sources for your claim that the UN still considers Spain to be the administrative power of Western Sahara? (Not that it really matters - Spain clearly does not consider Western Sahara to be part of Spain in any way, so it doesn't make sense for this article to include it either. I'm just curious.) Chrisahn (talk) 20:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Chrisahn: I do Have the Direct Source of The Official UN Website : http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/pdf/crp_2006_kamal.pdf Page 7 First paragraph : Furthermore, the formerUnder-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs, the Legal CounselHans Corell, made it very clear, on 29 January 2002, that: ‘TheMadrid Agreement [signed between Spain, Morocco andMauritania on 14 November 1975] did not transfer sovereigntyover the Territory, nor did it confer upon any of the signatoriesthe status of an administering Power’. Spain administering power of Western Sahara by (de jure) By the UN JhonAlonso555 (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Chrisahn: Why do you delete my contributions , I have gave you all the Official Sources Whats the reason ? What more sources do you need ?

I reverted your addition of the area of Western Sahara again. Read this section: #Please do not make changes without prior discussion. Note the word prior.

Even your latest quote does not confirm that the UN considers Spain to be the administering power of Western Sahara. On the contrary. Since Spain was one of the signatories, the following part means that according to the UN, Spain does not have the status of an administering power: "...nor did it confer upon any of the signatories the status of an administering Power".

But as I said, since Spain clearly stated that it "considered itself thenceforth exempt from any responsibility of an international nature in connection with the administration of the said Territory", it is clear that Spain does not consider Western Sahara to be part of its territory. Even if the UN took the position you (mistakenly) claim it does, it wouldn't really be relevant in this case. Please stop adding wrong information to the article.

I think we have exchanged all relevant arguments. I won't engage in this discussion anymore. If you keep adding this misleading information, I will file a WP:request for comments or a WP:request for page protection. Please get acquainted with Wikipedia policies and conventions, for example WP:BRD. Quote: "Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting." Chrisahn (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Chrisahn: First Sorry for Making changes without Discussion , I was wrong in that . I didn't see That section .

Give me real proof with source from the UN that Spain is not in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_list_of_Non-Self-Governing_Territories For West Sahara , I agree Spain dosen't want to be administering power of West Sahara, But that doesn't mean the UN says that Spain is not administering power of West Sahara . And it also doesn't mean Spain can't Own Territory by (de jure) Please give me a Relevant Sources that needs this requirement "consider to be their territory" In a UN Decolonization Process.

Please tell me where does it say In the PDF of the UN Webpage? I send you ,Your Comment : according to the UN, Spain does not have the status of an administering power: "...nor did it confer upon any of the signatories the status of an administering Power".

Please tell whats your information with sources thats says that a country needs to want to be administering power? , even if the UN says they are administering by (de jure)

What is your source saying that West Sahara is no longer in The UN Decolonization Process of Western Sahara ?

Also Please Understand the Difference (de jure) and (De facto)

All I see is you claiming This guy said this in a abstract Mode ... With no sources or not telling me where does this claim come from ... And Im actually giving you Official UN Web Source telling you where is the Info and you telling me "Please stop adding wrong information to the article" and threating me to report me for nothing ... It seems Like a abuse of Power JhonAlonso555 (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I need someone else Opinion on this , Please give me sources of every claim you guys make . @Laanders: @Batmacumba: @Melaneas: @Corticopia:

Administering powers of Non-Self-Governing Territories:

  State currently in control of territories on the list

  State formerly in control of territories on the list

  Special case, i.e. extenuating circumstance, historical control, longstanding/stagnated issue, etc.

See it's very special Situation? and Unique is not as easy as you put it

JhonAlonso555 (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that asking for a third opinion is a good idea. I also added a request at Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreements. Chrisahn (talk) 12:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

3O Response: Wow, this is really tricky. There's clearly some controversy over the territory, so how about a third option/compromise: 505,992 when the Canary Islands, Ceuta and Melilla are included. 771,992 if also including the disputed territory of Western Sahara. Throw in a footnote if you feel it requires further explanation. This way the table has the size of European Spain, with the main territories, and additionally with the disputed territory, giving the three figures in likely order of interest. Would that work? I would tend to keep Spain at its current ranking (4th) on the table. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution! I still think it's wrong to include the area of Western Sahara because

1. Spain explicitly said it doesn't have any connection with Western Sahara anymore, and
2. there are no clear sources for the claim that the UN still considers Spain the administering power of Western Sahara.

For example, we don't include the #Antarctic territories of several European countries because the claims are too tenuous. The connection between Spain and Western Sahara is even weaker.

But I'd say let's wait two or three days to see if @Laanders: or @Batmacumba: (or maybe others who contributed to the article) have an opinion. If there's no other opinion after a few days, I could also (grudgingly ;-) ) live with your suggestion. Thanks! Chrisahn (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I personally would not include Western Sahara in Spain's land area. But it seems that at least some sources assign the disputed territory to Spain, though it seems like this is very much a technicality. If the table were tight for space I might just put it in a footnote, but it seems like there's room for it in the table. I definitely feel the first two figures are more important and useful than the figure including Western Sahara, and that those should definitely be stated. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Reidgreg. I have a question about the sources though. "it seems that at least some sources assign the disputed territory to Spain" - I don't think there are any such sources. Could you clarify which sources you meant?

If I understand JhonAlonso555 correctly, s/he interprets the UN's statement "the question of Western Sahara [is] a question of decolonization which remained to be completed by the people of Western Sahara" (see above for details) to mean that the UN still assigns the disputed territory to Spain. I think it's clear that the latter cannot be deduced from the former, and such an interpretation is original research. But I'd be happy to have a look at sources that clearly say the UN (or another relevant entity) still assigns the disputed territory to Spain. (Such a statement wouldn't mean we should add the area of Western Sahara to the area of Spain - Spain's 1976 statement that it has no connection with Western Sahara anymore should take precedence - but it would clear up one contentious point in this discussion.) Chrisahn (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the pings. I’ve been reading up on/off during the weekend and wanted to add my position. Apologies in advance for the length.

While the current status of Western Sahara (WS) is clearly disputed, this seems to be a matter of whether or not Morocco or the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic has a legitimate claim to the territory, or some position in between. I have been unable to find any sources that consider Spain to have been meaningfully involved as a direct party since its withdrawal in the 1970s.

The UN does designate Western Sahara as a Non-Self-Governing Terrirtory (NSGT) since 1963, and as such subject to decolonization, but unlike the other 16 such territories listed on their website, WS does not have an administrating power listed. Expressed differently, the UN no longer considers Spain as the administrating power of WS.

Recurring UN sessions are dedicated to the WS matter. In the official meeting coverage of the most recent session I could find, of 14 June 2016, the only mention of Spain is in its historical role until the mid-70s. It seems clear to me that the entire context of the current WS issue pertains to the relationship with only one foreign power: Morocco.

As I understand it, the only case to include the area of WS in that of Spain, is that somehow because Spain's pullout and handover to Morocco and Mauretania (the Madrid Accords) did not meet international expectations (which were that the territory be decolonized, not given away), it will "de jure" belong to Spain until such time as the international community agrees that it belongs to someone else (including a new independent state.) I disagree with this position. When Spain has clearly not been involved for over four decades, and has itself renounced any claims on the territory, it makes no sense to me to continue to force some sort of technical ownership of that terriroty onto the nation.

There seems also to be an underlying notion that territory has to belong to someone, if not one, then the other. By this logic since Morocco is not internationally considered to have a legitimate claim to the WS territory, and since the state of SADR is only partially recognized and controls only a minimal part of the territory in question, then ownership has to by default fall to Spain, the last somewhat legitimate official claimant to the territory (though even that could be disputed by the notion of decolonization itself.) I don't agree with this premise either. In my opinion, a territory can simply be considered as disputed without defaulting to ownership by any sovereign country.

My conclusion is that WS is not a part of Spain, and its area should not be included in Spain's total area. I might add that this is supported by any online resource of Spain's area I can find, including for example the CIA World Factbook, the BBC and Enciclopedia Libre Universal en Español, all of which give the nation's area as just over 500,000 square kilometers, though the exact number differs slightly as they tend to do.

Out of curiosity, is there any precedent or parallel case where a country is considered to own, even in a technical way, some piece of territory against its will? I strongly doubt it, but if there is that would certainly be an interesting component to the discussion. Barring that, I am unequivocally in favour of removing the alternative number of Spain's area which includes WS.

Laanders (talk) 09:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the long, clear, well-written and well-sourced contribution! :-) Chrisahn (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks from me as well, I'm not in a great position for checking sources. My proposal had that distancing if to avoid stating that it should be counted. I don't have strong feelings about including it or not; it might be considered trivia and lists shouldn't be cluttered with too much of that. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Colours

Putting the countries into categories by size and giving each row a colour according to its category is a nice touch, but I reverted the colours for the following reasons:

1. The coulors made the table less readable. For example, the blue links in the blue category are hard to read.
2. Readability may be much worse for users with colour blindness. See MOS:COLOUR.
3. The two hues of green were almost indistinguishable.
4. They don't really add much info. The categories are arbitrary.

Maybe we can add this categorization if we can find a colour scheme that fully addresses the first three points. I'd rather leave the table as it is though. Chrisahn (talk) 10:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I didn't strongly mind the colouring as such, but I also don't feel it helped convey any meaningful information. Certainly the readability, especially for colour-blind readers, was sufficient reasons to roll the colouring back. Laanders (talk) 11:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Kktc

Her ne kadar Avrupa tanımasa da kktc rum kesiminden ayrı gösterilmeli türk insanı açısından 9251 km2-3355 km2 kktc=6596 km2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turkoglu Mustafa Turk (talk • contribs) 15:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)