Talk:List of transcontinental countries/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Contemporary French overseas possessions

France's overseas possessions have been removed from the list of countries that "could all be considered transcontinental, solely by virtue of the fact that an integral part of their national territory consists of islands that are situated within the continental shelf of another continent or are otherwise geographically closer to another continent than the mainland" by Foobaz, since French Guiana is on the South American mainland. By such a standard adhering to "solely," Spain had to go also, since Ceuta and Melilla are on the African mainland. I still want to make sure that France's overseas possessions remain visible, so I put the French New World possessions under the Americas. Heff01 02:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

After an edit by 70.68.167.170, I came to realize the best way to present France in the above list. It is to include all continents by name except for South America (since almost all such French land is on continental mainland.) Let's keep it short, and may the United Kingdom continue to receive "props" and "cheers" for presences on all seven continents, as long as it can do so responsibly, as a good governor and steward of the earth. Heff01 06:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Now that South America is in the list with France, that's fine to me. I suppose we still don't need all of France's overseas possessions enumerated, like the way it was done last year and the way that I did with the United Kingdom when I added it to the list. Heff01 02:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Spain's African presence

While mainland Spain is part of Europe, it also controls the Canary Islands, Ceuta, and Melilla, all associated with Africa. The list of geographically transcontinental states says that "Non-contiguous parts of countries are not considered (i.e. distant integral parts, extraterritorial possessions, dependencies and the like – examples include French Guiana, Hawaii, and Ceuta and Melilla)." Although Ceuta and Melilla is a short distance from the European portion of Spain, it is on the African mainland. Should we keep Spain in the tables? Another factor is how do we define "distant." The definition not only determines whether Spain stays in this portion of the article, but also whether Yemen, Colombia, and Portugal remain there and in the tables. Since none of these transcontinental possessions is more than several hundred miles away from the "metropolitan" portions of its respective country and each is an integral portion of its respective country, I'm in favor of keeping, but would like to hear some input. Heff01 20:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What should we do with Spain being in the list found in the "islands" section? The list is defined as nations considered transcontinental "by virtue of the fact that an integral part of their national territory consists of islands that are situated within the continental shelf of another continent or are otherwise geographically closer to a continent on the mainland." Foobaz thought that the list needed a clarification, so he added the clause of "on the mainland of which they have no territory." The last time Spain was re-entered to this list, I deleted it, but with the latest re-introduction, I'd appreciate some feedback before I decide on what to do. Spain's entry is a sticky spot, since although the Canary Islands fit the island definition that many of us seek, Ceuta and Melilla are on the African mainland. The Canary Islands include much more area and population than Ceuta and Melilla, not to mention the fact that Morocco objects much less to the former remaining part of Spain, so let's talk about it here. Heff01 07:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Updating Panama's area figures

I noticed that there was an edit lowering Panama's area to meet Wikipedia's Panama article figure. I went back to the World Gazeteer and calculated more accurate figures, which put more of the country's area in South America and substantially less in North America. Heff01 23:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I found a page with a chart of the area and population of Panama's districts: [1] Unfortunately, it's of no use until we have a map showing the locations of the districts in the transcontinental provinces. Once that happens, we'll have a much higher degree of accuracy in the calculations. Heff01 00:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoever did the population approximations for Panama was way off. Going back to this World Gazeteer page [2] found me even more land in South America and much more population there. The nation's two largest cities, Panama City and Colón, are in the South American portion. Two other comarcas indígenas, Kuna de Madugandí and Kuna de Wargandí, also were not being counted. The area percentage in South America rose to 40.38% and the 2007 population percentage in South America went up to 45.59%. The accuracy of the calculations was wrong until today. Heff01 17:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Transcontinental territories

The Netherlands Antilles are included in this article in the transcontinental country area and population tables, although they actually compose an overseas territory of the Netherlands. In this case, both the North and South American islands are inhabited. There are one other current and one past example of transcontinental territories. French Polynesia may technically be considered transcontinental, since the uninhabited Clipperton Island, although associated with North America, is administratively part of the territory. British Indian Ocean Territory was transcontinental until 1976, when the United Kingdom ceded the islands of Aldabra, Farquhar Atoll, and Desroches to the island republic of Seychelles. The territory included both Asian and African islands until that time, but is now confined to islands associated with Asia. I thought that I'd mention this case in discussion, but it doesn't merit inclusion in the historic list of transcontinental countries, since it had nowhere near the level of sovereignty of the Latin Empire and the Kingdom of Sicily. Heff01 18:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, these three examples are the post-colonial-era ones and there have been some other examples of transcontinental territories in history. Among these include the British protectorate over South Yemen (with the African island of Socotra,) the Spanish Viceroyalty of New Granada, the Dutch East Indies, and the Roman provinces of Ægyptus and Cyrenaica. Heff01 19:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

On February 21, 2007, France transferred Clipperton Island to direct administration by its Minister for Overseas Territories, so French Polynesia is no longer transcontinental. The same law made the French Southern and Antarctic Lands transcontinental on the same day by adding the scattered islands in the Indian Ocean, so that the territory now has Antarctic and African islands. Madagascar had been a transcontinental territory from 1893 to 1955 when it included the French sub-Antarctic islands. [3][4] Egypt as a British colony was also a transcontinental territory and Allied control over the Suez Canal proved to be a major key in both World Wars. Heff01 15:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Until South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands was separated to form its own British territory, it was part of the transcontinental Falkland Islands Dependencies, which included South American and Antarctic islands. Argentina continues to claim all of these islands to its east to this day as part of Tierra del Fuego Province. Heff01 00:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Due to their claims on islands of the British Indian Ocean Territory, Seychelles and Mauritius claim to be transcontinental countries in a manner similar to Argentina. Heff01 03:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Should we split the page?

The transcontinental country page is now up to 66K in size. It might be a good idea to give the list of transcontinental empires and countries in history its own page. Heff01 20:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. The new subpage trimmed 16K from the parent article. See what you think. :) Heff01 00:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Map deletions

An autobot deleted the maps showing the boundaries between Africa and Asia and between North and South America. I know many of you who have paid attention are angry and I did something about it. The map may not be "properly sourced," but sometimes original work is the only available way to demonstrate the concept. The colors and boundaries are wholly consistent with Wikipedia defintions found in this article. From now on, may I ask that no map deletions be performed without a discussion opportunity on the talk page? Heff01 00:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

My reversions were themselves reverted within minutes by a third party. I need some people who care to speak up, or else we can kiss these worthwhile maps goodbye forever. We lost enough articles and entries to merciless critics over the last year, so I pray that common sense may prevail in this case. If you're paying attention and care, please help! Speak up before it's too late! Heff01 01:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I notified Alinor that he had forgotten to set the license information. Hopefully, he'll license the images properly, and then we can point to them again. There's nothing wrong with original images ... the author just has to certify that it's OK to use them. Kww 01:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance. Hopefully we can avoid problems like these in the future. Some of our editors are much bigger sticklers for documentation rules than I am. Heff01 22:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Trinidad and Tobago

The text and associated map of countries in both American continents show Trinidad and Tobago in different lights. The text has the nation entirely associated with South America, while the map shows Trinidad in green and Tobago in pink, in other words a transcontinental country. Which is it? I find that it makes more sense to consider the island nation entirely South American and change Tobago's color to green, but arguments can be made for it being transcontinental. If it is considered transcontinental, it breaks down as follows:

Area: 301 km² (5.87%) North American, 4,827 km² (94.13%) South American, 5,128 km² total

Population: 54,084 (4.28%) North Americans, 1,208,282 (95.72%) South Americans, 1,262,366 total (2000 census) Heff01 23:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This article regards Grenada as North American, but an argument could be made for it being South American. Heff01 15:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Does Armenia belong in the charts?

Armenia was removed from the charts of countries in both Europe and Asia, allegedly because it is entirely considered in Asia. Although this is true, it has been in the charts because it is a nation that commonly is considered in either continent, depending on where the boundary is drawn, and the inclusion reinforces where the Wikipedia boundary is. Other such nations near an intercontinental boundary but entirely considered in one continent by this article are Aruba, Trinidad and Tobago, East Timor, and Malta. Will they also be removed? I favor keeping them in the charts, but am not prepared to touch off an editing war until other editors join this debate. Heff01 18:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Transcontinental ???

Wikipedia is the first place that I've seen that describes countries with the term Transcontinental? Would you mind providing any good references. SosoMK 14:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Kazakhstan

I found an English-language page with maps of the districts of each of Kazakhstan's provinces which may be found here: [5] I used this to add how the nation's two transcontinental provinces split up. Heff01 15:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The link has population but not area numbers. Heff01 15:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I used the tables and maps from the BRIF Central Asia link for a more refined population estimate. Including the cities and towns considered independent of their surrounding districts, I calculated that approximately 140,000 Atyrau Province residents and 386,000 West Kazakhstan residents live in Europe, for a total of approximately 526,000 Kazakhstanis in Europe. Heff01 19:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops! I forgot the part of Akzhaikskiy district in Europe, so there are approximately 413,000 West Kazakhstan residents living in Europe, for a total of approximately 553,000 Kazakhstanis in Europe. Heff01 19:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Greece 3

It is really disconcerting to see articles such as this in Wikipedia. Everybody knows that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone and, consequently, some of its articles will exhibit lower than standard quality. But the quality of this page is appalling, falling far short of the Wikipedia standards. My objection has to do with Greece and its Agean Sea islands but there might be other parts of the article that also need checking.

Let me start with the edit that added this information about Greece. It was Revision as of 20:56, 6 July 2005. The person that made the edit is unknown (IP 62.204.151.1). However, he seems to have had a great deal of interest in the topic, since there are a number of edits made with this IP. What is more important, though, is the fact that he did not offer any references justifying his contribution to the article. Indeed, to this day the article does not have any references, save a link to a site called World Gazetteer, which is a private site. A far cry from being a credible source. This speakes volumes about the commitment of some of the editors of this article to scientific and verifiable information. Even so, it is worth mentioning that even the so called World Gazetteer does not list Greece as a trans-continental country!

The article contains further controversial elements, such as the Methodology of calculation section, where it states that the methodology is non-scientific and yet proceeds to apply it to Greece and lists Greece in the following section as a trans-continental state. The article also provides a map, again not cited from anywhere, that shows a number of Greek islands as non-European. Who made this map, based on what international consensus, remains a mystery.

Let me just end by saying that something is not true because we want it to be true, or because we think it is true. Rather, there must be a general consensus on the matter. That is why Wikipedia is better on scientific matters: it is difficult to dispute scientific evidence. On the other hand, subjects such as the one that this article tries to tackle are a matter of consensus. Europe does not have to have this or that border. People decided on what the border is. However, it is for geographers and politicians to decide on this and not Wikipedians. So, unless someone can provide a piece of undeniable evidence from some international body or organisation, I think speculations such as Greece being trans-continental should be removed.

As a final note let me say that Wikipedia should be bringing people together by being a source of information shared by everyone and not create animosities by creating sources of false information. 77.49.7.74 13:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The boundaries used in the Greece calculations are those in the article that reflect the definition allowing the Greek Aegean islands on Asia's continental shelf to be considered Asian. Heff01 18:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

But the Greek Government considers the Greek Aegean islands on the European Continental shelf. Also, I have never seen a map that considers or shows Greece as both a Europe and Asia country. It has always been shown as a country entirely in Europe. ^{El Greco (talk · contribs)} 18:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The Greek government probably wants to maintain as clear a distinction between its own and the nearby Turkish islands as possible, but the fact remains that some of the easternmost Greek islands are on the continental shelf of Asia Minor. It is customary to consider Greece entirely in Europe and few maps actually include an intercontinental boundary in the eastern Aegean. Meanwhile, I am searching for outside online articles on this matter. Heff01 01:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I have never seen or heard of Greece being transcontinental before I saw this.

Islands are not contiguous and thus cannot be included as belonging to a continent except for the continent in which the owning country is in. In this case, its Europe.

Its like saying now that when your in Santorini or Rhodes, your not in Europe.--219.90.228.195 13:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes that's what it says for the Dodecanse. It doesn't for the Cyclades, they are not considered Asian or even ambiguous by anyone. Anorak2 08:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

If it is held that "Islands are not contiguous and thus cannot be included as belonging to a continent except for the continent in which the owning country is in," then Spain, Portugal, and Italy are no longer considered transcontinental countries since their outlying African islands are no longer considered African simply by vitrue of the mainlands of the countries being in Europe. The Dodecanese Islands and most of North Aegean Prefecture are on Asia's continental shelf, but the Cyclades are farther west and European. Santorini is in Europe, and Rhodes is a geograhpically-Asian island in a European country. Heff01 15:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

According to Temple World cruises and safaris: "The islands of the Dodecanese run like a necklace around the Aegean coast of Asia Minor, from Patmos in the north to Rhodes in the south. Their proximity to the Ottoman coast of mainland Turkey allowed them to be tax-exempt by Sultan Suleiman in the 16th century, hence they were known as the 'Privileged Isles.'" [6] It was Ottoman policy for almost four centuries to consider them part of Asia. Italy took control of them in 1912 and they have only belonged to Greece since 1945. For at most 62 years the current geopolitical thought of the Dodecanese in Europe is hardly a match for centuries of them being thought of in Asia. Prior to the Ottoman conquest, there was little if any distinction between European and Asian sides of any boundary, and only since World War I have the distinctions become stronger.

Chios, Samos Island, and Lesbos Island continue this chain of islands up Asia's Aegean continental shelf and became part of Greece in 1912. In ancient times these Greek islands on Asia's continental shelf were partly or wholly controlled at times by the Asia-Minor-based thalassocracies of Phocaea and Pergamon, as well as by the Achaemenid Empire of Persia. Wikipedia's definitions allow that "the following countries could all be considered transcontinental by virtue of the fact that an integral part of their national territory consists of islands that are situated within the continental shelf of another continent or are otherwise geographically closer to a continent on the mainland of which they have no territory." Greece belongs in that list and other places from which it has been deleted.

Also in the introduction to this article's discussion way at the top: "Often some cultural and historical reasons are brought up that should 'prove' that the country belongs ONLY to that continent. In this article is covered the geographical meaning of continents. The cultural and historical reasons are used only as exception (in the cases where the geographical place is not the same as the popular opinion) and only for INCLUSION to a second continent. No state is EXCLUDED from its geographical continent because of such reasons (Despite that they are often much more important in practice)." Heff01 00:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The World Gazetteer is used in the article toward area and population figures of political subdivisions, not to determine whether the nation is transcontinental or precisely where that boundary may be. Meanwhile, I'm trying to find the source of the Aegean island color map. Heff01 01:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The islands belonged to Greece prior to Ottoman control. And using a travel website is hardly a reliable source. ^{El Greco (talk · contribs)} 01:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The same material about the Dodecanese Islands under Ottoman rule is in the Wikipedia article on the islands here: [7] Heff01 20:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The islands belonged to Greek people under the Byzantine Empire prior to Ottoman control with a period in the 13th century of control by the Latin Empire. The Byzantine Empire was centered on the continental boundary and its post-Latin-Empire reunification was accomplished by the Empire of Nicaea, another transcontinental empire starting on Asia Minor. Heff01 03:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Britannica Online sheds additional light on the Greek Aegean islands. [8] "To the southeast the rocky but sheltered islands of Lesbos (Lésvos), Chios (Khíos), and Sámos lie close to the Turkish coast and are extensions of peninsulas on the coast of Asia Minor." That goes a step beyond acknowledging their position on the Asian continental shelf toward proving that they are associated with Asia. As the beginning of this discussion page says, even though the islands may be considered politically European, that does not change the fact that they are geographically associated with Asia and does not exclude Greece as a transcontinental country. This article's definitions are geographic, not political or cultural. Heff01 16:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Better Georgia numbers

When I added the approximate subdivision area numbers, I was surprised by how much the area in Europe was under-estimated. The number jumped from 2,000 to 4,620 and the percentage from 2.87 to 6.63, placing it above Kazakhstan and Turkey in the table. I added which subdivisons (historic regions) of districts were in Europe or transcontinental. Population will be more of a challenge to verify, but is unlikely to change significantly, due to quite low population densities on the northern slopes of the Caucasus (lower than NE Azerbaijan.) Heff01 21:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijan numbers updated

Here is the link for the World Gazetteer Azerbaijan regions' area and 1999 population (still greater than the replaced figures from the table) numbers: [9] I was surprised by how much the numbers in Europe (particularly the population) rose. Azerbaijan has a greater percentage of its population in Europe than Kazakhstan has. The previous accuracy was also wrong here until now. Heff01 18:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Portugal's numbers

Portugal's area in Africa includes Madeira as well as Porto Santo Island, the Desertas Islands, and the Savage Islands. The latter three groups, although part of the autonomous region, are not reflected in the World Gazetteer, but are in Wikipedia's number for the autonomous region. Also, the population numbers are not consistent between Wikipedia and the World Gazetteer, with the former projecting a significantly higher national population. Meanwhile, Madeira seems to be losing people. Heff01 21:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Split suggested

I suggestion that this article be split into two articles (or rather, an article and a list): Definitions of the continents (a topic which is rather distinct, in my opinion) and List of geographically transcontinental states (though that probably deserves a simpler name, like List of countries spanning more than one continent.).--Pharos 19:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, at least I've fixed the WP:NEO problem now by moving to List of countries spanning more than one continent.--Pharos 16:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There's more to this article than simply being a list. I don't know if the move is intended to be preliminary to the recommended split, but if such a move is to be made, we need a consensus on how to do it. Heff01 01:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the move was intended as preliminary. I propose that Section 1 'Definitions of the continents', be split into its own article (perhaps Borders of the continents ?), similar to the French Wikipedia article Limites de l'Europe. Of course, the that is only a rough plan, and when it is actually split some material will have to be shifted around a bit.--Pharos 02:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've split them now. Wasn't quite sure how to divide the pictures, though...--Pharos 18:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

My additions: US, France

After adding the US and France I realized that the beginning of the article presents a scope for the list, and that US and France don't fit that scope (Hawaii and French Guiana being explicitly mentioned in the scope description). The scope calls for contiguous territory and nearby outlying islands only.

But I don't think that that is a useful criterion. I don't think it's useful to exclude Hawaii and French Guiana, and they are different politically from Greenland and Bermuda (the other two explicitly mentioned examples). Hawaii and French Guiana are integral parts of the countries to which they belong. Hawaii is as a part of the United States in the same way as Illinois. French Guiana is a part of France in the same way as Lot-et-Garonne. Bermuda is a dependent territory; Greenland is, I think, largely autonomous, and doesn't even share Denmark's membership in the EU.

Does anyone want to discuss this? Either change the criterion or remove my addition.

By the way--is Greater Diomede island (Russia) in North America, or is Lesser Diomede island (US) in Asia, or does the true continental separation happen to run between them? —Largo Plazo 17:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Tables - original research?

The tables look dubious to me. A general link to the World Gazetteer is provided, but I doubt this covers all the number crunching and conclusions in the table. Where for example, do the comments on "Calculation accuracy" come from? I suggest a case of WP:OR and WP:SYN.

I've already removed two tables, I would like to remove the remaining tables. --Merbabu 12:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

From a very quick look at the World Gazetteer website (which I've never visited before) I was unable to find where the data on the proportion of the country in different continents was sourced from. For instance, the entry on Egypt doesn't even state what continent the country is in, much less what percent is Africa and what percent Asia. As these tables weren't sourced they may be original research and I'd support their removal - at least until a source is provided. If sourced, the tables would be very useful. --Nick Dowling 10:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find any of the info either from that site. Perhaps we should then remove the source provided and replace with citation tag? Or just remove immediately? I'll to the former now and think about the latter. ;-) --Merbabu 11:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The relevant Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Verifiability seems to imply that the material should be removed rather than left in the article. I note that some of the entries in this article have unexplained text like "Accuracy of area calculation: high Accuracy of population calculation: high" which suggests that someone performed these calculations themself using their own methodology. --Nick Dowling 11:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

OK - let's be bold. My thinking is the same as yours. They can be reinstated easily enough if someone finds a source. I put a url to the pre-removal diff here for that purpose (i doubt it can be used though). --Merbabu 11:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The usefulness of this article

It seems to me, especially in light of the feuding that's taken place here in the last 24 hours, that the underlying concepts—what's a continent, what does it means for a country to span two or more continents (see my earlier contribution), etc.—is so nebulous that, taking into further consideration the fact that whether a country spans two or more continents is of absolutely no consequence in any realm whatsoever, I wonder what purpose this article serves at all.

Imagine someone proposing an article purporting to list all famous actors who have had great romances in their lives. In the first place, the concept is of no consequence. In the second place, people will never agree anyway on criteria for measuring an actor's level of fame, for classifying a romance as "great", or even for judging a relationship to be a romance. This article on countries spanning continents is like that. —Largo Plazo 14:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article should cover all significant points of view. The "fueding" though is between one user and the rest; this editor chooses to provide only one view point and delete all reference to another (ie, that East Timor is thought by some - including the UN - to be in Asia). He has argued on other pages (see Talk:East Timor) that his reasoning and deductions are more important than UN and other sources. The tables are original research and synthesis, are based on one POV only when in fact there is at least two, and it provides the flimsiest of referencing.

If this (currently blocked) editor can be reined in and provide references, use the edit summarise properly (which includes reading and replying to summaries of others) and not continue to break his block and the 3RR rule with sock accounts and anon IP's then maybe it might settle down. In the meantime I am happy to discuss on talk page (as I did in the section immediately above this one).

I too suggest that this is not an overly useful article, on the other hand, if we are to have it, then the information must be correct - and that means listing all significant referenced POV's and not deleting beyond 3RR references to the one's we don't like. --Merbabu 23:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)\

---

I note that this is one of the stupidest Wikipedia articles I've come across. Perhaps the very stupidest, structurally correct sentence I've read in Wikipedia is this:

"France, Norway, South Africa, and the United Kingdom may also be considered transcontinental by virtue of distant island possessions associated with a continent other than where the country is based."

GrouchyDan (talk) 01:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

South Ossetia

South Ossetia is not an independent state, it is georgian provinve and is not recognized as a state by any other country. Description "if its de facto independence..." is ridiculous. I would like to see this name removed from the list of "countries". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omicron Persey 8 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Portugal (Azores)

According to the article about one of the island of the Azores, it lies on the American plate and not the European one. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flores_Island_%28Azores%29) Does this qualify for an edit in the Portugal entry? 85.159.97.6 (talk) 09:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Trans-Caucasia is NOT in Europe

No recognized geographical classification has ever designated Trans-Caucasia as being part of Europe. Specifically, the boundary between the two continents has never been fixed further south than the central ridge or backbone of the Caucasus Mountains, south of which the rivers flow south, and north of which they flow north. That means all, or virtually all, of Georgia is in Asia, and most of Azerbaijan is Asia. The UN classifies them as being in Asia. We are speaking strictly about geography here, not about political or cultural affinities. It is disigenuous and false to claim that the entire Caucasus mountins, including half of Georgia and half of Azerbaijan, are in Europe simply because these nations are members of the Council of Europe (not that European organizations have exactly been in a hurry to defend the political interests of Georgia, though, but that is another matter). It is also irrelevant how BBC and, indeed, Wikipedia, classify them, as these organizations have no mandate whatsoever to decide where one continent ends and another begins, particularly as these classifications are politically motivated.

In fact, the border between Europe and Asia was historically defined by the Swedish military officer and geographer Philip Johan von Strahlenberg, who suggested the border follow the peaks of the Urals, and then the lower Emba and the coast of the Caspian Sea, before passing through the Kuma-Manych Depression, which lies 300 km north of the Caucasus Mountains. In 1730, this course was approved by the Russian Tsar and since then was adopted by many scientists. Following this definition, the mountains are a part of Asia and according to this view, the highest European mountain is Mont Blanc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasus_Mountains

This was the last time a certified official demarcation of the continental boundaries was made.

Perhaps, though, the problem is that there is no real geographical distinction between Europe and Asia, only political, and the fact that Europe is currently expanding as a political entity is what is creating these uncertainties over boundaries. If that is the case, we should consider to stop talking about Europe and Asia as separate continents in geographical terms, and simply speak about a Continent of Eurasia.

Jacob Davidson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think you really need to stop posting this spam like messages of very similar nature. What is your definition of Europe is IRRELEVANT. There is a consensus in here and it can not be overturned by simply pushing your POV. Get over it and get lost.--Satt 2 (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Satt 2, again, stop your nationalistic propaganda. You know what the consensus amongst geographers regarding your country is, since > 100 years. Certainly not Europe. --62.167.207.2 (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Greece situates partially in Asia

The islands of Greece on the coast of Asia minor, i.e. the Greek North Aegean Islands (excluding Saint Eustratius and Lemnos) and the Dodecanese Islands situate in Asia, look at the map in the image Continental Shelf Border.PNG.
--PKo (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The borders of Europe (or any other continent) do not follow state borders or is somebody claiming at that e. g. Turkish part of Thrace situates in Asia?

What is the source that Bozcaada/Tenedos island is in Asia, but Symi as if in Europe? The owner of islands does not explains it, look at for example the Spain-owned Canary Islands (in Asia) and also the Italy-owned Pantelleria and Pelagie Islands (in Africa).

--PKo (talk) 14:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

As I also noted on the Greece article's talk page, please provide proper reference. This map isn't referencing its sources or any academic material so it cannot be used to support your claim. Walnutjk (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The source, which shows that Greece situates partially in Asia: Around the world: Countries that exist wholly or partially within geographical Europe, inter alia From the Black Sea coast, the geographical border of Europe passes through the deepest parts of the Black Sea to the mouth of the Bosphorus; on through the Bosphorus, the Sea of Marmara and the Dardanelles to the Aegean Sea; through the deepest parts of the Aegean Sea to the Mediterranean and around to the Straits of Gibraltar. The line through the Aegean Sea divides the Greek Islands between continental Europe and continental Asia.
--WPK (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again... Walnutjk (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Unhelpful image

The map used to explain Egypt's situation is unhelpful, for the simple reason that the Asian part of Egypt is the same color as the rest of Asia, which makes it's border and it's placement on the two continents unclear. Could someone who knows more about image editing change the image accordingly? Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I now realize that the map of Panama has an identical problem. ClovisPt (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've read a lot of terrible Wikipedia pages, and this is as bad as some of the worst. Since when is St-Pierre-et-Miquelon an overseas department of France? I'll tell you since when it hasn't been: 1985. I'm pretty sure this precedes the creation of Wikipedia. This article gets worse, and worse, and worse, and is a fair example of the oft-repeated statement, "If you want to lose faith in humanity, read online comments." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.32.28 (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Is Oceania a continent?

For the purposes of this article, is Oceania a continent, as opposed to an absence of continents?

If it were to counted (which is contrary to the meaning of continent), we need extensive rewriting. If it is not, the claim that certain countries (the United States and others) are transcontinental should be mentioned only under Oceania, and not above. Septentrionalis 16:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

And if it is not a continent that would make Indonesia only on Asia, plus some territory not on any continent.

Well, usually people talk of 5 continents: Europe, Asia, Australia, Africa and America. I'm not sure if Oceania is part of Australia, Africa, America, a mixture of them or none of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.11.156 (talk) 08:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Ukraine

One of the definitions of Europe-Asia border (perhaps the most rigorous one) has the border going through the Strait_of_Kerch. Tuzla_island, being Ukrainian territory, is east of the line, dividing Europe and Asia, i.e. in Asia. Hence, Ukraine may claim transcontinental status, no?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.183.180.38 (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Continent Definition

Although it may double up with the continent page, perhaps a little on the complications of defining what a continent is will help set the scene for the complications of whether countrys are or are not bicontinental. The division of a country between 2 continents is entirly dependant on what the continent boundry is defined as. Political, Social, historical, geographical and geological definitions. As such, by different definitions different countries could be seen as bicontinental. Perhaps there could be more than the one viewpoint it seems to be that this artical uses definite definitions of what these continents are, something which doesn't exist. It could be sugested that continental definitions, even geological definitions of a continent are arbitary human constructs. Perhaps there should be a greater deal of fluidity of what these continental boundries consist of and as such what constitutes a bicontinental country. Gazzapedia 15:41, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps the best way is on this page to use multiple definitions. We could provide the three (or more) definitions at the top of the page. Then for each of the bicontinental countries, we can note which definition(s) apply. Val42 17:28, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

---

I learned at school and teach to my pupils that a continent is a land surrounded by oceans. They are only three: Africa-Eurasia, America and Antarctica.

Then you forgot some continents: Australia, Java, Sumatra and Borneo, which all are contiguous lands bordered by several distinct oceans. Your definition is not enough, even if it can exclude Greenland because its western border is just a sea on the North American shelf and not an Ocean, and it was even linked to it by land in very ancient times (and still by an iceshelf today) . verdy_p (talk) 11:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The fourth continent, Oceania, is so considered only by geographers, but it is not a continent according to the the proper definition. However, in daily speech, World Parts are usually misunderstood for continents, but the two parts of America which are usually considered as one continent. World is usually divided into World Parts for study purpose: Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, South America, Oceania, Antarctica. Val from Italy

(Begin of Talk page)

Thats the problems with definitions that we learned from biased people who were not taught properly (namely our school teachers).

Continents are just easily recognizable regions of land.

America (or americas if one considers both north and south separatedly) Antarctida Asia (which is a "region" and not a continent since it has defined subregions) Europe Africa Oceania(usualy defined as Australia and surrounding islands)

These are just the big chunks of land easily identified. Sotavento (talk) 18:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Panamanians accept Panama as part of North America?

I'd like to know who wrote this nonsense. We are taught in public and private schools that Panama is in Central America, although we are historically linked with South America. Again, we don't even recognize the country being splitted by half by the geographical position of the canal and I think I can speak for most Panamanians. -- ...RuineЯ|Chat... 22:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Considering that Central America is seen to be the "southern part of North America", then it would be a valid situation. I would agree to a point though that a man-made canal shouldn't be the dividing factor, similar to Egypt's Suez canal. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not the canal, but the isthmus that used to connect Egypt with the Sinai even before the canal was built, which we consider the dividing line between Asia and Africa. Anorak2 (talk) 08:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Do Panamanians view "the Americas" or "America" as one or two continents anyway? Anorak2 (talk) 08:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It's described on the Spanish Wikipedia (América is the article). America is a whole continent, with 4 subdivisions: North, South, Central and "Antillas" (Caribbean). Panama is shown over there as a whole geographic position - this isn't any different of what our current school system teaches us. -- ...RuineЯ|Chat... 15:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources for Panama being in South America?

I've never heard of Panama being part of two continents; it's the southernmost country in Central America, which is part of North America. There are no sources given, and the entire paragraph frankly sounds made up, as though its author 'wishes' it was true. Why would a canal automatically make it the continental border, because it's a concrete divider??? I could just as easily say that Mexico is part of South America because there are fences and walls preventing people from crossing north. And it would be just as silly. 162.136.193.1 (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Me too, w/o sources this must go. And Italy in Africa? a hundred years ago they may have claimed Libya not today(Lihaas (talk) 07:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we should note the diference between what is a widespread concept and what is not, but both of them worth the note. For example, I live in Brazil, and on the List of active separatist movements page there are 3 Brazilian separatist movements I've never seen a single footnote on the newspaper, but I know that very few people support. So, it must be mention because, nevertheless, they exist. That's the case of Panama Canal as a divider. No one said it is the most spread concept, but it exist. It is well written in Panama page:

"Panama is located in Central America, bordering both the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean, between Colombia and Costa Rica. Some people consider the territory east of the Panama Canal as part of South America, although this is rare."

Hope to have helped. Zé Carioca (talk) 23:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The panamanians never consider if Panama is a divided country. None official book or document explain about this conjecture. It's totally a hoax. --Taichi (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Spain

In the category, it says that Spain is a bi-continental country. But it says NOTHING about Spain here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.227.206.216 (talk) 04:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)