Chipmunkdavis (talk | contribs) →Georgia as a transcontinental country: While we're here |
ComtesseDeMingrelie (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 128: | Line 128: | ||
While we're discussing countries, is there any objections to removing that large table of past names? I don't see any value in them on this page. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|Chipmunkdavis]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 12:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC) |
While we're discussing countries, is there any objections to removing that large table of past names? I don't see any value in them on this page. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|Chipmunkdavis]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 12:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC) |
||
:I disagree with the current wording. Making it appear as if placing Georgia in Asia is as common as placing it in Europe is deceptive and it shows inherent bias of user Chipmunkdavis who from the beginning displayed a particular zeal for pushing his narrow point of view. There was nothing wrong with the previous note as long as it was sourced.To make this even worse, his version is the one on which the page got locked which I find puzzling at best.Moreover, I would not agree with uniting all countries under a single note because Kazakhstan is neither member of the CoE nor listed as European by the EU or any other sources provided.--[[User:ComtesseDeMingrelie|<font color="Blue">'''''ComtesseDeMingrélie'''''</font>]] 14:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:57, 5 April 2011
Template:Outline of knowledge coverage Template:VA
![]() | This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of March 20, 2005. |
![]() | Asia C‑class Top‑importance | |||||||||
|
Iran: Southern or Western Asia?
This multi-color map,
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/Location-Asia-UNsubregions.png/220px-Location-Asia-UNsubregions.png)
classifies Iran (according to the UN?) in Southern Asia but the table following it on the article lists Iran in Western Asia. I suppose there should have been a "Southwestern" Asia as well...
Anyhow, it'd be nice if the map and the table were made consistent.
DEMONYM
Spell it WITH me now, brothers and sisters: DEMONYM, not deNmonym as the article title says.
Alexander the greats map.
Errm may I ask why a largely conceived of to be European empire is listed on a map of Asian history? I ask it be removed and replaced with something more decent Asian orientated like the Achaemenid empire. Stinks of a colonial attitude. Especially when a sentence in the Europe wiki states.
"Europe, in particular Ancient Greece, is the birthplace of Western culture"
Can you understand my frustration? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supersymbiotic (talk • contribs) 22:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Remove
Can someone please remove informqtion regarding China as having the largest and richest economy for much of it long history. According to another Wikipedia article this was not the case as India and the British Empire also had the largest economies at certain points in time. This is even supported by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_India.
It says and i quote 'For the next 1500 years, India produced its classical civilizations such as the Rashtrakutas, Hoysalas and Western Gangas. During this period India is estimated to have had the largest economy of the ancient and medieval world between the 1st and 15th centuries AD, controlling between one third and one fourth of the world's wealth up to the time of the Marathas, from whence it rapidly declined during European rule.'- This can be found as part of the introductory paragrapgh.
In fact i would like to point out that none of the references actually support this Chinese view. They simply say it had the largest economy just before the start of European colonization. This is true but it is also true that India had for the most part the largest economy in the world for much of the world's long history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.82.241 (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Edit request from 24.44.58.122, 17 December 2010
{{edit semi-protected}}
Under the Economy section, regarding this statement: "In 1995, Japan's economy nearly equaled that of the USA to tie as the largest economy in the world for a day, after the Japanese currency reached a record high of 79 yen/dollar". First, it really should have a citation. I've never heard that fact, and a very quick search didn't find any substantiated source for this interesting tidbit. Second, even if true, it's worded rather awkwardly, with the "nearly equaled...to tie" phrasing.
24.44.58.122 (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm, after a bit of searching I did find this (see the first graph) which agrees with the statement. I fixed the wording for now. I will see what others think about removing the statement or finding a better source. Stickee (talk) 05:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Georgia
I think it is time to remove Georgia (country) from this honorable list of Asian countries as majority of its population does not consider itself Asian and the International Community recognizes it as European.[1]
- ^ Majority of reputable sources place Georgia in Europe such as the European Union [1], the Council of Europe [2], British Foreign and Commonwealth Office [3], World Health Organization [4], World Tourism Organization [5], UNESCO [6], UNICEF [7], UNHCR [8],European Civil Aviation Conference [9], Euronews [10], BBC [11], NATO [12], Russian Foreign Ministry [13], the World Bank [14], Assembly of European Regions [15], International Air Transport Association [16],Oxford Reference Online, OSCE [17], ICRC [18], Salvation Army [19], International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies [20],Council on Foreign Relations [21], United States European Command [22], Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary [23] and www.worldatlas.com.
What is Azerbhaijahn?
The first sentence refers to Asia as the largest "Azerbhaijahn" but when one Googles that word, one gets only this particular sentence in Wikipedia and nothing else except references to the country Azerbaijan [various spellings]. Please either define this word, or change it. I looked up Asia when I saw a discussion about "is the Middle East Asia?" -- Asia is partly in the eye of the geo-political beholder, I guess, but if it is the world's largest "Azerbhaijahn" the reader should know what that means. Geoscriptor (talk) 06:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Geoscriptor I removed it, it looks like spam to me! Cyberdrakon (talk) 06:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Edits needed
Can someone please remove informqtion regarding China as having the largest and richest economy for much of it long history. According to another Wikipedia article this was not the case as India and the British Empire also had the largest economies at certain points in time. This is even supported by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_India.
It says and i quote 'For the next 1500 years, India produced its classical civilizations such as the Rashtrakutas, Hoysalas and Western Gangas. During this period India is estimated to have had the largest economy of the ancient and medieval world between the 1st and 15th centuries AD, controlling between one third and one fourth of the world's wealth up to the time of the Marathas, from whence it rapidly declined during European rule.'- This can be found as part of the introductory paragrapgh.
In fact i would like to point out that none of the references actually support this Chinese view. They simply say it had the largest economy just before the start of European colonization. This is true but it is also true that India had for the most part the largest economy in the world for much of the world's long history.86.150.246.215 (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- You can't use Wikipedia as a source. You have to find another reliable source to support your statements. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 18:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Georgia as a transcontinental country
The same problem occurs here as in Europe concerning the status of Georgia as a transcontinental country. It is pointless giving lists of sources to prove Georgia is in Europe; or equally well in Asia. The situation has been solved at Europe and the same solution should be adopted here for consistency. The editor who made the changes seems to edit many articles concerned with Georgia, including Europe. If necessary more information on transcontinental countries and their status can be included elsewhere in this article (outside footnotes), but statements like "most sources place Georgia in Europe" cannot in fact be sourced The CIA fact book differs from the BBC, etc. But this topic has already been discussed many times, certainly on the Talk:Europe and its archives. Mathsci (talk) 03:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- The same user has restored their changes, without any comment here. I have reverted their changes. They are not following WP:BRD by failing to note these points here, which have been discussed at length many, many times on Talk:Europe and its archives. Mathsci (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- My descriptions in the edit summary are clear enough. I am not going to come out here and argue obvious things just to waste everyone's time. My note was harmless and it was simply stating a reality. I know that CIA factbook and other sources differ, but that is the reason why Georgia is in this chart in the first place, is not it? I did not remove it, I merely added that the majority of sources I have place it in Europe.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 18:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- It is ambiguous, so I have adopted the compromise from Europe, namely that is often considered a Transcontinental country, that most sources describe it as being in Europe, but that a few named sources regard it, for particular reasons, as being in Western Asia. I hope that using that formulation is now satsfactory. There is an ambiguity and that has been quite well worked out in the European footnote (I truncated the end, but that could be reinserted). Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I am definitely in favor of standardizing the footnotes across pages because previously this Asia page has stood by itself, as if none of the changes made outside had to be adopted for the sake of consistency. Now I think it is more fair and will not confuse people when they go from page to page. For that reason, I will actually try to include this footnote in other regional classifications which are also known to cause confusion.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 19:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Good and thanks, Mathsci (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry I reverted. This is not a source war. There is not going to be a stacking of sources against each other. Do any of those sources that consider it is in Europe say that it is not in Asia? If not the comparison is completely pointless. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Good and thanks, Mathsci (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I am definitely in favor of standardizing the footnotes across pages because previously this Asia page has stood by itself, as if none of the changes made outside had to be adopted for the sake of consistency. Now I think it is more fair and will not confuse people when they go from page to page. For that reason, I will actually try to include this footnote in other regional classifications which are also known to cause confusion.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 19:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- It is ambiguous, so I have adopted the compromise from Europe, namely that is often considered a Transcontinental country, that most sources describe it as being in Europe, but that a few named sources regard it, for particular reasons, as being in Western Asia. I hope that using that formulation is now satsfactory. There is an ambiguity and that has been quite well worked out in the European footnote (I truncated the end, but that could be reinserted). Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- My descriptions in the edit summary are clear enough. I am not going to come out here and argue obvious things just to waste everyone's time. My note was harmless and it was simply stating a reality. I know that CIA factbook and other sources differ, but that is the reason why Georgia is in this chart in the first place, is not it? I did not remove it, I merely added that the majority of sources I have place it in Europe.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 18:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- You are making a ridiculous demand chimpinkdavis. Do any of the sources that place countries in N. America say that they are not in south America? What does this have to do with anything? I disagree that we are engaged in a "source war" because we did not remove Georgia from the Asia/Western Asia list based on one set of sources, we merely acknowledged what is more common based on the sources we have. The fact that the country remained on the Asia list is enough of a prove that the differing sources have been considered as much as the European placement ones. If we had it all removed, then that would be a problem. --ComtesseDeMingrélie 14:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Chipmunkdavis, your edit was unhelpful. This problem has occurred multiple times in the article Europe, where a very careful solution has been worked out in a footnote. That footnote has been copied here verbatim. After the mention of transcontinental country, it added the same two sets of carefully prepared sources which have been in place for a number of years. To use the words "source war" is thus completely inaccurate. There have been nationalistic editors of Europe who have caused disruption over the status of transcontinental country, but that is fortunately not what is happening here. The ambiguity has been spelt out without making any non--neutral claims.
I do have two questions about Turkey and Georgia. There are no population figures for the Asian part of Turkey, or any part of Turkey at all; and the population figures for Georgia are for the whole of Georgia, not for the Asian part of Georgia (in Europe the figures are only for the part of Georgia deemed to lie in Europe). Mathsci (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- I do not have Europe on watchlist, so I have no idea what's on that article. The footnote has absolutely no purpose but to try and push a view that Georgia is solely European and the sources given do not substantiate this. The whole reason Georgia is on both lists is that it is transcontinental, ie it is in both Asia and Europe. Showing a bunch of sources to the reader that say it is in Europe does absolutely nothing. Yes it is, we all agree on that. The point of the excessive footnote is what exactly? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Let me repeat myself again, nothing in what we did suggests that we are pushing that Georgia is "solely European." Mathsci already remarked that this is the reason why the very first sentence of the footnote mentions that Georgia is often considered a transcontinental country. The rest of the sources simply give readers an idea of how frequent is one definition among the respectable sources, and how frequent another. I see absolutely no harm in that. --ComtesseDeMingrélie 15:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- The basic question of why still isn't answered. What does it mean for these organisations to call Georgia European? We note it is transcontinental, I'm fine with that. Frequency of sources does not matter in this. Of course a European organisation such as the Council of Europe will include Georgia. Anyway, many of these, that divide into different regions, have to decide whether to place Georgia in Europe or Asia. We do not face that problem.
- The Europe note by the way, is not neutral and does push a position. "It is placed in Europe by numerous European and international organizations,[176] but it is sometimes considered Western Asian[177] because of its peripheral location in the south-easternmost part of the continent." Basically it's saying that it should be Europe, but because its on the edge of Europe it is sometimes Asian. A properly neutral note would be a some sources call it European, some sources call it Asian, with no qualifiers or explanations. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
(ec) I have a lot of experience with Europe. This problem is recurrent, which is one reason why that footnote is in place. The wording states that often Georgia is regarded as a transcontinental country. It lists sources for both Europe (e.g, BBC) and Western Asia (e.g. CIA Fact Book), in a neutral way. That has stopped problems on Europe. On Europe as well, it was necessary to add a lengthy section on the borders of Europe in the definition section, using WP:RS. For the most part, that has prevented problems. Those problems arise when editors want to suppress the ambiguity. In addition the labelling of the political map of Europe acquired a colour code to indicate transcontinental countries and special cases such as Malta, Cyprus, Armenia and Greenland. The solution there seems stable and that should also be true here. I don't suggest altering the political map on Asia (for Euope, I did it manually and it took a long time, because of disruption by the sockpuppet of an indefinitely banned user). Mathsci (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- The footnote is pointless and too long. If necessary, all that's needed is that some sources place it in Europe, and some place it in Asia. A complete list of everything we can find doesn't help. Additionally, including sources such as the Council of Europe is ridiculous, as they're not exactly picking between Europe and Asia. Additionally, I see ComtesseDeMingrelie has decided to edit war this on to Western Asia, but not Eastern Europe, for some strange unfathomable reason. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- This is only a footnote. In Europe, the transcontinental countries are discussed in detail in the main text at various points. That doesn't seem to be the case here, so perhaps the better way to go is to spell that out in the main article. (I am surprised that as an article Europe is twice the length of Asia.) I am absolutely for the maximum amount of ambiguity and neutrality in this case. That is best achieved by adding to the main text, not tweaking footnotes. Mathsci (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm absolutely fine with an explanation of transcontinental countries, be it footnote or text, as long as it is WP:NPOV. The current footnote with its attempt to overload with references to Europe and qualify ones that mention Asia is not, however, NPOV. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- My suggestion is to look at Europe as a guide. At present there is no explanation whatsoever of transcontinental country in the main text of Asia (ho, hum) nor where that ambiguity came from (the cartographer von Strahlenberg, amongst others). That is a problem with how this article has been written. I think you should add something to the main text, if you have time. Mathsci (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Why the Asia article needs a section on transcontinental countries eludes me, but a small explanation under a list of countries is fine, perhaps with mains to relevant articles. In fact, I'll try and do this later, I assume it would mention Russia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Armenia, Turkey, and perhaps even Egypt. The ambiguity is because continents don't follow the political borders of countries, which frankly, is fine. This insistence that a country is one or the other is pointless. As for taking Europe as a guideline, I don't think so, it has a separate footnotes for each transcontinental country, but only Georgia has been singled out to be loaded with references asserting its European-ness. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- You are misreading me. I am only suggesting extra content in the main article to state definitively that certain countries are usually regarded as transcontinental. The article on Europe has no separate section on transcontinental countries. It does have a separate section on the definition, which is carefully sourced. There was one source in particular which was particularly useful, Lewis & Wigen (1997). The myth of continents: a critique of metageography. University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-20743-2. Once something is definitively in the main text with sources about transcontinental countries, that will solve any resting doubts you might have about WP:UNDUE or WP:NPOV. I have spent several days over the years helping sort this out on Europe and am one of the main watchers there.[24] Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Why the Asia article needs a section on transcontinental countries eludes me, but a small explanation under a list of countries is fine, perhaps with mains to relevant articles. In fact, I'll try and do this later, I assume it would mention Russia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Armenia, Turkey, and perhaps even Egypt. The ambiguity is because continents don't follow the political borders of countries, which frankly, is fine. This insistence that a country is one or the other is pointless. As for taking Europe as a guideline, I don't think so, it has a separate footnotes for each transcontinental country, but only Georgia has been singled out to be loaded with references asserting its European-ness. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- My suggestion is to look at Europe as a guide. At present there is no explanation whatsoever of transcontinental country in the main text of Asia (ho, hum) nor where that ambiguity came from (the cartographer von Strahlenberg, amongst others). That is a problem with how this article has been written. I think you should add something to the main text, if you have time. Mathsci (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm absolutely fine with an explanation of transcontinental countries, be it footnote or text, as long as it is WP:NPOV. The current footnote with its attempt to overload with references to Europe and qualify ones that mention Asia is not, however, NPOV. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- This is only a footnote. In Europe, the transcontinental countries are discussed in detail in the main text at various points. That doesn't seem to be the case here, so perhaps the better way to go is to spell that out in the main article. (I am surprised that as an article Europe is twice the length of Asia.) I am absolutely for the maximum amount of ambiguity and neutrality in this case. That is best achieved by adding to the main text, not tweaking footnotes. Mathsci (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- I have reverted the article to the last stable version to allow unbiased discussion to continue. I agree with Chipmunkdavis that the version in place contained an unnecessarily long list of sources, and read more like a talk page comment by someone trying to push the view that Georgia is in Europe than an article footnote. Since numerous sources list it as being partly in Asia (including extra detail on the CIA page stating that "a sliver of land north of the Caucasus extending into Europe"), there is no reason to treat it any different from the other transcontinental countries in Asia. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- It is the established footnote from Europe. In principle I don't have any particular preference between the long footnote and the present one. However, if there is edit warring by other editors who edit articles connected with Georgia, don't say that I did not warn you and that I didn't find an appropriate compromise solution. In Africa, as here. there is no explanation of transcontinental countries. Egypt is the example between Africa and Asia. It is described as such in Africa, but not in this article. Which article is correct: Africa or Asia? Mathsci (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- And what I predicted has just happened. Mathsci (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Something being used in Europe is not a reason for it to be used here. Nothing in the main test will fix my NPOV concerns with that footnote, but as I see a footnote is wanted, I'll fix it as I alter the text. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- And what I predicted has just happened. Mathsci (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, it looks a lot better now. The only issue I personally have truck with now is that Egypt is not listed amongst the main body of countries. The Sinai peninsula is indisputably part of Asia, hence giving Egypt the same logical status as all the other transcontinental countries. The footnote at present justifies Egypt's omission due to its not being in the "UN geosphere". But as far as I can see from the image on the page, Russia is not in the "UN geosphere" for Asia either. So either both should be included or neither. Unless there's some other reason that I'm missing... — Amakuru (talk) 09:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Dammit that's annoying. You're right. It could be just converted to a list of countries and territories, and thus include Russia, Egypt, Christmas Island, and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Alternatively, the current section Russia is in could be moved into the bottom and be noted as "Other areas" or something similar. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
There are six transcontinental countries: Russia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey and Egypt. There are two countries, Armenia and Cyprus, which are not transcontinental (they lie in Asia) but, for historical and cultural reasons, are often considered to be part of Europe. I wonder if you could correct this? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well...can't correct anything now. You're right about Armenia though, that was a mistake on my part. The Cyprus footnote link is broken, have to fix that too. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
While we're discussing countries, is there any objections to removing that large table of past names? I don't see any value in them on this page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree with the current wording. Making it appear as if placing Georgia in Asia is as common as placing it in Europe is deceptive and it shows inherent bias of user Chipmunkdavis who from the beginning displayed a particular zeal for pushing his narrow point of view. There was nothing wrong with the previous note as long as it was sourced.To make this even worse, his version is the one on which the page got locked which I find puzzling at best.Moreover, I would not agree with uniting all countries under a single note because Kazakhstan is neither member of the CoE nor listed as European by the EU or any other sources provided.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 14:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)