m Signing comment by BushelCandle - "→Kosovo in its own section: " |
Sweetkind5 (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
||
(13 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
|leading_zeros=0 |
|leading_zeros=0 |
||
|indexhere=yes}} |
|indexhere=yes}} |
||
== Israel vs Armenia & Cyprus == |
|||
I do not understand why [[Armenia]] & [[Cyprus]] are listed as part of Europe while [[Israel]] isn't. Geographically, all three countries are wholly in Asia (Western Asia), but Armenia & Cyprus have been included in Europe for geopolitical reasons. I reckon Israel should be classified as a European country for the same reasons. Otherwise, we should exclude all three of them from Europe. |
|||
On the other hand, [[Turkey]], [[Azerbaijan]], [[Georgia (country)|Georgia]], [[Russia]] and [[Kazakhstan]] can all claim to be European countries as they do have part of their territories in Europe, even though some of them, especially Kazakhstan, are generally considered part of Asia. [[User:Kenwick|Kenwick]] ([[User talk:Kenwick|talk]]) 06:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== The map looks odd == |
== The map looks odd == |
||
Line 94: | Line 89: | ||
:::::I have listed this on [[WP:3O]]. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 04:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC) |
:::::I have listed this on [[WP:3O]]. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 04:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC) |
||
::::::Would you provide the URL so that the discussion can be followed, please? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:BushelCandle|BushelCandle]] ([[User talk:BushelCandle#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/BushelCandle|contribs]]) 04:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
::::::Would you provide the URL so that the discussion can be followed, please? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:BushelCandle|BushelCandle]] ([[User talk:BushelCandle#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/BushelCandle|contribs]]) 04:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
== Recent edits == |
|||
This mass edit warring should stop, anything furher on should be discussed here, one editor even breached 3RR.([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 20:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)) |
|||
Yes totally agreed; this insanity needs to stop. The problem started when some users started to place Turkey and Kazakhstan in the area of "considered Asian countries". Turkey is a member of SEVERAL European organizations, the most important of which is the Council of Europe. Whereas Kazakhstan isn't a member of a single European organization and its history, culture is heavily tied to Central Asia. The two are simply incomparable in terms of Euoropeannes. [[User:Sweetkind5|Sweetkind5]] ([[User talk:Sweetkind5|talk]]) 20:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Almost all sources regard Kazakhstan an Asian country, despite a tiny bit of its area in northwest being in Europe. [[User:Sweetkind5|Sweetkind5]] ([[User talk:Sweetkind5|talk]]) 20:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
: First off, your aggressive edit tactics and use of unscholarly sources, is not appreciated nor is it constructive. Please see your talk page; you have been warned multiple times this month alone. As for your rationale- it is flawed. Both Kazakhstan and Turkey are generally considered Asian countries as the vast majority of their land and population resides in Asia proper. Yes, Turkey is a member of certain European organizations but that does not change the fact that Turkey is still considered an Asian state. Also, contrary to what you claimed above, Kazakhstan is a member of a few European organizations like the [[European Higher Education Area]]. That does not make them a "European" country, just as Turkey's membership in the Council of Europe does not make it European. Not to mention, both countries are members of various Asian integration pacts like the [[Asia Cooperation Dialogue]]. I hope you can finally understand why your edits are not an improvement to this article. [[User:Archives908|Archives908]] ([[User talk:Archives908|talk]]) 21:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
: Side note- I think this whole sentence in general is very problematic. Georgia, by no means, is considered Asian. The current Georgian government is very Pro-EU, the govt' finalized a comprehensive trade and political deal with the EU, they aspire to full EU membership (and NATO/ other Euro-Atlantic structures), and they have zero Asian integration plans. It is very misleading to the current geopolitical realties. [[User:Archives908|Archives908]] ([[User talk:Archives908|talk]]) 21:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::The sentence in question is out of place and should be removed. Original research about what makes something a European or Asian country are a bit much for this page, which already shows the Geography while also taking an expansive view in the list. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 01:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::Agreed. [[User:Archives908|Archives908]] ([[User talk:Archives908|talk]]) 01:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::Agreed with Archives' summarization. I just wanted to say, either we restore that version the we achieved together with Archives initially and source it properly, or we delete this as uncited (even tagged).([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 03:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)) |
|||
::::: Thanks ([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]), I agree. The recent escalation of back-and-forth edits is getting out of control. We should either restore to what we achieved together (with citations) or remove completely. If any other editors care to share their opinions please do so, otherwise we will be [[WP:BOLD]] and put this matter to rest. [[User:Archives908|Archives908]] ([[User talk:Archives908|talk]]) 04:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
I, honestly, don't care to take part in this discussion, since the only that's talked about here is pure antiTUrkish propaganda with no basis in reality. Until that changes, don't expect me to stop my war on propaganda edits. [[User:Sweetkind5|Sweetkind5]] ([[User talk:Sweetkind5|talk]]) 23:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Being European has nothing to do with language or history (as in "But the Turks only came here in 1494 and they are invaders!"). This is not how you evaluate a country's Europeannes. You instead look at their current geopolitical stance. Turkey is a transcontinental country, just like Russia. And JUST like Russia, it is a member of sevral European organizations and even went as far as applying for EU membership, which even Russia didn't do. Clearly, it is considered a European country by many countries, otherwise none of it would be possible for Turkey. So I hope you all now have and understanding of why we can't include Turkey in the Asian list. [[User:Sweetkind5|Sweetkind5]] ([[User talk:Sweetkind5|talk]]) 00:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
If I see anymore comments of "but Turkey is simply not a European country! Why? I donno, it just isn't! The turks are invaders! They only came here in 15th century! F*** the Turks!", I will simply not take part in this discussion. Period. [[User:Sweetkind5|Sweetkind5]] ([[User talk:Sweetkind5|talk]]) 00:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
The same aforementioned reasons were used to include Armenia and Cyprus in the European list, even though they are completely located in Western Asia. So, the same will be true for Turkey. [[User:Sweetkind5|Sweetkind5]] ([[User talk:Sweetkind5|talk]]) 00:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:13, 27 December 2020
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
The map looks odd
The map has a category called "Transcontinental territory most often considered to be within Europe" encompassing European Turkey and Europan Russia (incl. even the Kaliningrad oblast!). I have never heard anyone deny these territories are within Europe, so "most often" seems completely unnecessary and even misleading (no one denies St. Petersburg or Moscow are European cities). "Within the conventional definition of Europe, but part of a transcontinental state" would be more fitting. The category furthermore includes the European part of Kazakhstan, which is geographically in Europe, but which is most often not perceived as European. "Geographically within Europe, but most often not considered to be within Europe" would be more fitting for this area. At least the first of these two issues should be fixed (trying to fix Kazakhstan would likely lead to too many unproductive arguments).--Batmacumba (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Mount Athos
Mount Athos needs to be added as a dependent territory.93.213.169.60 (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Isn't Mount Athos an integral part of Greece? Yes, it has local autonomy, but is it different in kind from the local autonomy enjoyed by Spain's "autonomous communities" or by Scotland or Wales, none of which are listed in the article? AuH2ORepublican (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Kosovo in its own section
Previously this article followed the split on List of sovereign states. The split made to give Kosovo its own section has numerous issues. First of all, it titles the section with UN states and observers "Universally recognised" when they are not all universally recognised. On the current Kosovo section, its split is unsourced and contains WP:OR, such as that it is below a threshold for "wide recognition". It emphasises control of its territory, which is odd as many of the non-UN states control all of their claimed territory, and some of the UN states don't. On creating a new section in principle, I don't think it helps the reader if we start divvying up the states into more sections, so we should seek to minimise them. It seems odd to have a single-entry section that would easily fold into one of the others. CMD (talk) 03:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for discussing this here - it's much appreciated.
- Apart from Armenia (unrecognised by Pakistan) are there any other states listed at
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_in_Europe&oldid=896533659#Near_universally_recognised that are not "universally recognised", please?
- I take your point about undefined thresholds for "wide recognition" and consequently I have expanded this Kosovo sub-section to deal with that specific point.
- I agree with the oddness of emphasising physical control (the historical criterion of the British Foreign Office for diplomatic recognition) in this context and I also agree that we should limit the proliferation of further sub-sections.
- Personally I would not object to folding Kosovo into one section (the section presently titled "Near universally recognised") but renamed as "Substantial international recognition". --BushelCandle (talk) 04:41, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- Cyprus is the other country that has issues besides Armenia.
- The Kosovo section now has detail for a single country that is not given for any other country, which is undue. What would the criteria for "substantial international recognition" be that groups Kosovo with the UN members and observers, and is it elaborated on in reliable sources? An outstanding question remains why Kosovo was separated from a section it fit within. CMD (talk) 09:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- The use in Wikipedia articles of a third category of sovereign states--those with substantial, but not general, international recognition, occurred a couple of years ago when an editor complained that it violated NPOV to group the State of Palestine (which was rejected for UN membership and is not recognized by any G7 country or by most other of the largest developed economies, but does enjoy recognition from over 100 UN members) alongside de facto states with little or no international recognition such as the Republic of North Cyprus, the Republic of Abkhazia, etc. The agreement reached among editors at the time was for Palestine, Kosovo (which is not a UN member state but is recognized by over 100 UN members, including by many major economies), Taiwan (which is not fornally recognized by many countries due to the "One China" policy of the People's Republic of China but which enjoys de facto recognition and relations with a large majority of UN members) and Western Sahara (which is recognized by several dozen countries and is a member of the African Union) to be grouped as sovereign states with substantial, but not general, international recognition, and for the category of de facto states with little or no international recognition to be reserved for the Somalilands, Nagorno Karabakhs, etc.
- Personally, I think that, as ambiguous as that "middle category" may be, it is less of an affront to NPOV to place Palestine, Kosovo, Taiwan and Western Sahara there than it would be to group such states with generally recognized sovereign states (a phrase that I think is more descriptive than is "nearly universally recognized" states, although I can live with that term as well), such as Tunisia or Poland, or to group such states with de facto states with little or no international recognition, such as South Ossetia or Transnitria. Of course, like any other consensus in Wikipedia, it is subject to periodic analysis and determination that the consensus still holds. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- Can you please point me towards that discussion. On face value, it seems quite arbitrary, especially with regards to Taiwan. I'd like to know if its criteria can be found in reliable sources. I too prefer Generally recognised, it is better than using variations on universal. CMD (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
- While there was some discussion of this subject in the Talk pages for several articles that list sovereign countries, most of the heavier discussion took place in my Talk page because first one, and then a second, editor complained that Palestine shouldn't be grouped with de facto states with virtually no international recognition and posted in my Talk page after I had discussed the issue in the Talk pages of those other articles. That extended discussion can be found in items 16 through 26 of my Talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AuH2ORepublican The result of this was that those two editors created the "middle category" for Palestine, Kosovo, Taiwan and Western Sahara in a dozen or so articles that list sovereign states, including the article that we presently are discussing. Unfortunately, that second editor went on to become abusive and disruptive in his edits (including directing ad hominem attacks on me and other posters who were trying to preserve a NPOV in articles), and he was banned from Wikipedia. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 04:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
- It's interesting that this began with Palestine, as on List of sovereign states Palestine ended up in the top section, despite potential misgivings. There is some scope to be more specific on the state by continent articles than the main list, due to having a smaller scope, but I still think it should be done through very clear criteria. Grouping Palestine, Kosovo, Taiwan, and the SADR is arbitrary. I certainly understand the thoughts behind it, but don't feel that it makes for a sustainable base for division. There might be some clear criteria that would pull Kosovo into its own group, but I don't feel it is necessary, especially as we state quite clearly its much higher recognition in the status column. CMD (talk) 07:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
- I don't know if it is *necessary* to place Kosovo in its own category, but I can see how grouping it with generally recognized sovereign states such as France and Bulgaria or grouping it with de facto states with little or no international recognition such as Transnitria or Abkhazia would lead to complaints that such placement doesn't comply with NPOV standards. If proponents of recognition of Kosovo as a sovereign state insist on grouping Kosovo with substantially recognized states while proponents of Kosovo being deemed a Serbian province that illegally declared independence insist on grouping Kosovo with states with little or no international recognition, wouldn't the best way to implement a NPOV be to include Kosovo in a separate category that more precisely describes its level of international recognition? AuH2ORepublican (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
- Implementing something that was determined by various POVs is not a good way to implement NPOV. The specific solution also ignores the possibility for proponents of the recognition of other states with limited recognition to also argue for a unique split, or perhaps proposals to pull some countries down from the top section downwards. The best way to be neutral is to have a clear criteria that isn't based on consideration of any one particular case (to the extent this is possible). Lastly, the sections should not be intended to "precisely describe" levels of international recognition, that is what the status column is for. CMD (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
OK, so what do you propose, one category for generally recognized sovereign states (with the 193 UN member states plus the undisputedly independent Vatican City (which is not a UN member state only because it never has applied for UN membership) and one category for states with limited recognition (lumping together Kosovo, Palestine, Taiwan and Western Sahara with de facto states with little or no international recognition)? If so, you can be in charge of explaining to complaining editors why it isn't POV to group Kosovo and Palestine with Northern Cyprus and Somaliland--I've spent dozens of hours explaining why those two de facto states, despite being recognized by over 100 UN states, fall far short of being deemed generally recognized by the international community, and it will be more difficult to assuage such complaints without a middle category that at least sets them apart from de facto states without any recognition. I think that the most NPOV position possible is to assert that Kosovo and Palestine aren't generally recognized sovereign states but to acknowledge that they (along with Taiwan and Western Sahara) do enjoy a substantial level of recognition and thus their recognition status is different in type, not in degree, from that of unrecognized de facto states. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
- My proposal is to follow the split at List of sovereign states, which divides states into UN members+observers and others, and emerged after far too much discussion about how to categorise states. If it makes it clearer than we can header sections as such. I understand what you're saying, but we lack sources about what a substantial level of recognition is, and why those four states in particular reach that bar. CMD (talk) 10:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- Well, if "List of sovereign states" treats the State of Palestine, which does not have a unified government for its two noncontiguous territories, barely controls its claimed territory, was rejected for UN membership, and is not recognized by any G7 country or by most other large economies, the same as a generally recognized sovereign state, then I believe that such designation is not compliant with NPOV, and do not believe that such precedent should be followed in other articles. There are probably over a dozen other articles that list sovereign states, and they do not conflate UN observer status with UN membership, nor do they ignore lack of recognition from the international community. I would vote against treating the State of Palestine as a generally recognized sovereign state, for the simple reason that it isn't one, and it is POV to pretend that it is. Moreover, I would be opposed to treating the State of Palestine differently than the other states with substantial, but not general, international recognition (Kosovo, Taiwan and Western Sahara); in fact, Kosovo appears to be closer to achieving general recognition than has Palestine, so even if we drew a line between those four states it would be POV to classify Palestine as closer to generally recognized sovereignty than Kosovo is.
- The point of the split is that it isn't based on Wikipedian opinions about who is closer to 'general sovereignty'. It's based the question of which entities have been accepted as states by the largest body of states, which is the UN. You could draw a line between almost every non-UN state, and even between some UN states, but this would not be much use to anyone. CMD (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- You say that "[i]t's based the question of which entities have been accepted as states by the largest body of states, which is the UN."
- But the UN has not accepted the State of Palestine or Vatican City as member states (and in the case of Palestine, rejected its application). The fact that Vatican City and the State of Palestine are both "observer states" of the UN, when the former is a state whose sovereignty is not disputed by anyone and who would be a UN member but for its preference to remain as an observer (as Switzerland did from 1946 to 2002) and the latter is a disputed state whose sovereignty is not recognized by 11 of the 15 countries with the highest GDP (among the top 15 economies, only China, India, Russia and Mexico recognize Palestine) and whose application for UN membership was rejected just a few years ago, is all the proof one needs that being an observer state state of the UN is not tantamount to recognition of sovereignty by the members of the UN; heck, three of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, which have a veto right over any issue of importance, have refused to recognize Palestine, and one permanent member of the Security Council (China) has refused to recognize Vatican City. Besides, observer-state status does not give such states any voting rights that UN members enjoy; being a UN observer state does grant the state the right to join UN specialized agencies, but, then again, Kosovo and the two New Zealand associated states also have been granted membership to certain UN specialized agencies. So the fact that Palestine, but not Kosovo, is a UN observer state is not much on which one can hang one's hat. I know that it's preferable to find a bright-line rule, but if such rule is contingent upon treating UN observer states as if they were UN member states it becomes arbitrary. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- I said they were accepted as states not member states. It is correct that as non-members they don't get voting rights, although this seems self-evident. Your assertion that being accepted as an observer state is not a recognition of sovereignty is OR. On the contrary, being accepted as a state means Palestine can now sign multilateral UN treaties as a state. Being accepted as a state by UN members is an not arbitrary line, it is clear and is literally about recognition as a state. (Also, if as you say Vatican City has not been recognised by China, then it does not have undisputed sovereignty.) CMD (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- The People's Republic of China does not recognize Vatican City (because Vatican City recognizes the Republic of China (Taiwan) as the rightful government of all of China), and a few other UN members similarly don't recognize Vatican City (just as some UN members don't recognize Israel), but there is no dispute regarding Vatican City being sovereign over its territory. No other country claims Vatican City's territory, and the only country that possibly could claim that land (Italy) signed a treaty with Vatican City in 1929 specifically renouncing any claims to the Vatican City's territory and recognizing Vatican City's sovereignty. That's what I meant by undisputed sovereignty. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
It seems to me that Israel agreed to give up its claim over the land that forms the State of Palestine under certain conditions that Israel does not believe are being met, which is why Israel disputes Palestine's claim to sovereignty. There is a reason why in the List of sovereign states article the column for "sovereignty disputes" says "Disputed by Israel" in the case of Palestine and "None" in the case of Vatican City. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 11:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Israel disputes Palestine is a sovereign state, it does not however claim most of the supposed Palestinian territory (although annexing a little bit more was a recent election pledge). CMD (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Have there been any thoughts on this in the past two weeks, and following the discussion on Talk:List of sovereign states? I continue to feel a sourceable clear split is better than the unsourced one that was put in place last October. CMD (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- And I continue to believe that grouping Kosovo with de facto states with almost no international recognition, such as Transnitria or Abkhazia, would be a violation of NPOV. It would have the double effect of adopting Serbia's position that Kosovo is a rogue province without a claim to independence that is worthy of respect (a position that is rejected by most UN member states, including by most of the world's largest economies) while adopting in part Russia's position on its militarily-backed client states Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia and Turkey's position on its militarily-backed client state of Northern Cyprus that such de facto states are like Kosovo in that their status is "unclear" (a position that is rejected by nearly all UN member states, who have asserted that the inviolability of the borders of Moldova, Georgia and Cyprus is not a matter of debate). The Republic of Kosovo is a different case from that of the unrecognized or barely recognized de facto states, and if Wikipedia is going to remain neutral on the question of Kosovo's sovereignty it should not be grouped with unrecognized or barely recognized states. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- As you might expect, I concur with both the analysis and solution outlined by AuH2ORepublican. I have sympathy for the wish of CMD to try to find objective criteria for distinguishing membership of this third class, but fear the search will be fruitless. Perhaps CMD will find consolation in the thought that we are unlikely to be called upon very often in practice to determine whether new entrants qualify for membership of the third category?--BushelCandle (talk) 03:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- @AuH2ORepublican, the criteria I suggested does not adopt any positions, which is it's point. On the other hand, your split is backed entirely on your opinion that Kosovo has a claim to independence "worthy of respect", backed up continuously by your opinion that the size of economies is very important to this. You are also clearly adopting a position on all the other states. Basing things on your opinions is not neutral.
- @BushelCandle, I do not believe I found this criteria. I cannot even remember if I was originally for or against it. Nonetheless, it has been stable. I am not concerned about the third category, but about the second. It remains entirely unsourced. CMD (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- As you might expect, I concur with both the analysis and solution outlined by AuH2ORepublican. I have sympathy for the wish of CMD to try to find objective criteria for distinguishing membership of this third class, but fear the search will be fruitless. Perhaps CMD will find consolation in the thought that we are unlikely to be called upon very often in practice to determine whether new entrants qualify for membership of the third category?--BushelCandle (talk) 03:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- And I continue to believe that grouping Kosovo with de facto states with almost no international recognition, such as Transnitria or Abkhazia, would be a violation of NPOV. It would have the double effect of adopting Serbia's position that Kosovo is a rogue province without a claim to independence that is worthy of respect (a position that is rejected by most UN member states, including by most of the world's largest economies) while adopting in part Russia's position on its militarily-backed client states Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia and Turkey's position on its militarily-backed client state of Northern Cyprus that such de facto states are like Kosovo in that their status is "unclear" (a position that is rejected by nearly all UN member states, who have asserted that the inviolability of the borders of Moldova, Georgia and Cyprus is not a matter of debate). The Republic of Kosovo is a different case from that of the unrecognized or barely recognized de facto states, and if Wikipedia is going to remain neutral on the question of Kosovo's sovereignty it should not be grouped with unrecognized or barely recognized states. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Recent edits
This mass edit warring should stop, anything furher on should be discussed here, one editor even breached 3RR.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC))
Yes totally agreed; this insanity needs to stop. The problem started when some users started to place Turkey and Kazakhstan in the area of "considered Asian countries". Turkey is a member of SEVERAL European organizations, the most important of which is the Council of Europe. Whereas Kazakhstan isn't a member of a single European organization and its history, culture is heavily tied to Central Asia. The two are simply incomparable in terms of Euoropeannes. Sweetkind5 (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Almost all sources regard Kazakhstan an Asian country, despite a tiny bit of its area in northwest being in Europe. Sweetkind5 (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- First off, your aggressive edit tactics and use of unscholarly sources, is not appreciated nor is it constructive. Please see your talk page; you have been warned multiple times this month alone. As for your rationale- it is flawed. Both Kazakhstan and Turkey are generally considered Asian countries as the vast majority of their land and population resides in Asia proper. Yes, Turkey is a member of certain European organizations but that does not change the fact that Turkey is still considered an Asian state. Also, contrary to what you claimed above, Kazakhstan is a member of a few European organizations like the European Higher Education Area. That does not make them a "European" country, just as Turkey's membership in the Council of Europe does not make it European. Not to mention, both countries are members of various Asian integration pacts like the Asia Cooperation Dialogue. I hope you can finally understand why your edits are not an improvement to this article. Archives908 (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Side note- I think this whole sentence in general is very problematic. Georgia, by no means, is considered Asian. The current Georgian government is very Pro-EU, the govt' finalized a comprehensive trade and political deal with the EU, they aspire to full EU membership (and NATO/ other Euro-Atlantic structures), and they have zero Asian integration plans. It is very misleading to the current geopolitical realties. Archives908 (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- The sentence in question is out of place and should be removed. Original research about what makes something a European or Asian country are a bit much for this page, which already shows the Geography while also taking an expansive view in the list. CMD (talk) 01:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed. Archives908 (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed with Archives' summarization. I just wanted to say, either we restore that version the we achieved together with Archives initially and source it properly, or we delete this as uncited (even tagged).(KIENGIR (talk) 03:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC))
- Thanks (KIENGIR (talk), I agree. The recent escalation of back-and-forth edits is getting out of control. We should either restore to what we achieved together (with citations) or remove completely. If any other editors care to share their opinions please do so, otherwise we will be WP:BOLD and put this matter to rest. Archives908 (talk) 04:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed with Archives' summarization. I just wanted to say, either we restore that version the we achieved together with Archives initially and source it properly, or we delete this as uncited (even tagged).(KIENGIR (talk) 03:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC))
- Agreed. Archives908 (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- The sentence in question is out of place and should be removed. Original research about what makes something a European or Asian country are a bit much for this page, which already shows the Geography while also taking an expansive view in the list. CMD (talk) 01:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I, honestly, don't care to take part in this discussion, since the only that's talked about here is pure antiTUrkish propaganda with no basis in reality. Until that changes, don't expect me to stop my war on propaganda edits. Sweetkind5 (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Being European has nothing to do with language or history (as in "But the Turks only came here in 1494 and they are invaders!"). This is not how you evaluate a country's Europeannes. You instead look at their current geopolitical stance. Turkey is a transcontinental country, just like Russia. And JUST like Russia, it is a member of sevral European organizations and even went as far as applying for EU membership, which even Russia didn't do. Clearly, it is considered a European country by many countries, otherwise none of it would be possible for Turkey. So I hope you all now have and understanding of why we can't include Turkey in the Asian list. Sweetkind5 (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
If I see anymore comments of "but Turkey is simply not a European country! Why? I donno, it just isn't! The turks are invaders! They only came here in 15th century! F*** the Turks!", I will simply not take part in this discussion. Period. Sweetkind5 (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
The same aforementioned reasons were used to include Armenia and Cyprus in the European list, even though they are completely located in Western Asia. So, the same will be true for Turkey. Sweetkind5 (talk) 00:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)