Talk:Southern Europe/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Map

Hello everybody, The problem with the map put by KIENGIR is that it was created by a wikipedia user. This map is subjective and only represents the vision of KIENGIR. We cannot cut a country in two or cut Europe in two without any thought. This map was added recently and is causing problems. This map has nothing to do in the wikipedia page. We cannot forbid to display maps of world organizations and install a map made by a user on his own view of things.--81.67.153.44 (talk) 11:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@IP This is not "KIENGIR's map". KIENGIR only tries to maintain the status quo ante against undiscussed changes. There are more editors who disagree with your edits. –Austronesier (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Austronesier, thank you for taking the time to answer. The problem is that one cannot imposed a map that was created by a wikipedia user. This map is completely subjective and does not represent anything at all. It is in total disagreement with wikipedia principles and those that you told me. I understood what some users told me and I would not change anything without asking the opinion of the wikipedia community, however this must apply to everyone. I would like the page to remain serious. It is therefore preferable that there is no image in the header if no one agrees.--81.67.153.44 (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Concur with Austronesier.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC))

At no time can you install an image that comes out of nowhere and impose it on the page. This is against the principles of wikipedia.--81.67.153.44 (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The argument by IP81.67 that the map cannot be used because it was created by a Wikipedia user is, of course, just nonsense. The question is not who created the map, the question is which sources the map is based upon. As for any other content in Wikipedia, is has to adhere to the Wikipedia policy of verifiability, see WP:V. So let us take a look at the suggested maps:

• The green map File:Southern Europe - Broad definition.png is claimed to be "Regional map of Southern Europe". There is no source given on the file page at Commons, and no source has been presented in this article, so the map is not admissable in the present form. To include it, it would have to be given a caption that explains what definition of Southern Europe it represents, and that definition would have to be sourced.
• The blue map File:SouthernEurope-DarkBlue.png claiming to show "Southern European countries" has exactly the same problems, so the same conclusion is applicable here.
• There are several other possible maps at Commons, like File:Southern Europe (Robinson projection).png, which at one point was attempted included. Same problem, same conclusion.
• In my opinion, the only solution is to use a map or picture showing the relevant area, but without any exact delimitation of which countries or parts of countries are included. This is the solution that has been chosen for other "X-ern Europe" articles, see articles Eastern Europe and Western Europe for examples.

Even if one or more maps could be shown to represent a specific definition that can be sourced, the discussion (and for that matter the whole article) clearly shows that no universal definition exists, so that no single map can be used to represent the "true" version of Southern Europe. However, there is absolutely room for a section in the main body of the article to discuss different definitions of Southern Europe. In such a section, several maps might be presented and discussed (with proper sourcing, of course). --T*U (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello everybody, I agree with TU-nor on what he says about the maps.
Now according to me, he problem is with the user KIENGIR. He tries to put a map created by a wikipedia user on the Southern Europe page. However, this card only represents this user. This map does not correspond to the geological, geographical or climatic map of Europe. It does not correspond to any world body like the United Nations, EuroVoc, CIA, etc ... This map also does not match historical or ethnic maps. It is therefore totally subjective. We cannot invent maps and install them on wikipedia. This map was created by a wikipedia user and represents their vision only. It would be necessary to put a map which regroups all the countries which are found in each time in the maps of the world organizations.--81.67.153.44 (talk) 09:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

One problem is that geological, geographical, climatic, historical and ethnic maps do not follow the borders between present-day countries. Many such maps are already presented, and more could be added, but they will only be valid within their own field. They can never be used to define the limitations of Southern Europe in general.

No "world organisation" has ever given any clear definition of what constitutes "Southern Europe" or any other "X-ern Europe", and they never will. The United Nations geoscheme has no pretention of being an official categorisation, but is only used for statistical convenience, as can be seen on their official web site here: The assignment of countries or areas to specific groupings is for statistical convenience and does not imply any assumption regarding political or other affiliation of countries or territories by the United Nations. The EuroVoc is a thesaurus to ensure consistent translations between official EU languages. They have grouped the countries for their own convenience. The CIA are hardly a "world organisation" with any defining power, and in any case, they have never submitted any map defining regions of Europe. The CIA maps used in Wikipedia have been created on the basis of descriptions in the CIA World Factbook, which are merely describing the location of countries, like Slovenia is described as positioned in "southern Central Europe" to give an example.

In any case, the UN, EuroVoc and CIA classifications do not coincide to any reasonable degree, so trying to make a definition based on these schemes is futile. --T*U (talk) 10:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I think TU-nor has said all that can said. The remaining problem is that a block-evading IP has nothing but ad hominem attacks against a regular editor in good standing. For my part it's DFTT. –Austronesier (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

So precisely the climatic, geological, ethnic or historical maps clearly show the distinction of the peninsulas constituting southern Europe. However, it would be better to remove maps made by wikipedia users, no matter the point of view. The maps of these world organizations cannot be put aside knowing that they also all define southern Europe in the same way. In reality all these maps come together, except the one that takes into account your personal opinion. It is precisely the personal opinion that has no place on a wikipedia page.--81.67.153.44 (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

maps of these world organizations ... all define southern Europe in the same way. False! --T*U (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@T*U. Is that so ?? Iberian Peninsula, italian Peninsula are part of southern Europe in all maps. And the balkan peninsula is put either in southern europe or in south eastern europe. Are you having a problem with the Balkan Peninsula ? It will be better if you define your problem.--81.67.153.44 (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Therefore the green map will be deleted, and the blue map still under discussion--81.67.153.44 (talk) 12:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

Following up the discussion above, I will suggest to remove the infobox altogether. The reason is simple: There is no real data to put into it. As with the map discussed above, the list of countries is dependent on a clear definition. As the list now stands, it is neither in line with the green map (Southern France, Monaco, Bulgaria) or the blue map (Corsica), or for that matter with the list in the lede sentence (Southern France, Corsica, Monaco, Romania). Lacking a definition of limitations, it does not make any sense to give numbers for area and population. As for languages, the same applies, and the current list is neither consistent with the green map (French and Bulgarian missing), nor with the list of countries (French in Corsica missing). Infoboxes have regularly been attempted introduced to other "X-ern Europe" articles, but they have always been rejected and removed. This one should go, too! --T*U (talk) 09:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree. The geographical divisions of Europe are fluid concepts, so the infobox lacks a sharply defined base for hard facts. The various concepts of "Southern Europe" – each of which should be well sourced – are better captured in prose and a few representative maps. –Austronesier (talk) 11:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

It would be better to delete the map more than the infobox. Because the countries mentioned in the infobox nobody disputes them. Removing the problem is better than removing all the information.--81.67.153.44 (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

the countries mentioned in the infobox nobody disputes them. False! --T*U (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@T*U. Is that so ?? Which countries are you having a problem with ? A country of the infobox of course.--81.67.153.44 (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Everyone can see for themselves from the different maps and lists that "Southern Europe" is not a well-defined concept, so that the claims the countries mentioned in the infobox nobody disputes them in this section and maps of these world organizations ... all define southern Europe in the same way (CIA World Factbook, UN geoscheme, EuroVoc) in the above section are demonstrably false, but since that is contested, I will give just a few examples:

• Corsica (but not southern France) is included in the list, but not in any of the three maps.
• Cyprus is in the list and in EuroVoc, but not in the UN geoscheme.
• Slovenia is in the list and in the UN geoscheme, but in the CIA Factbook it is classified in "Central Europe" together with i.e. Germany, and in EuroVoc it is listed in "Central and Eastern Europe" together with i.e. Russia (but not Germany).

As long as no-one can offer an uncontested reliable source for which countries to include, the list in the infobox is original research, as are the numbers for area and population and the list of langauges, not to mention the unsourced (green and blue) maps. I will remove the infobox and the two maps and reinstate the illustration that had been in the lead for a long time. Infobox and/or map should not be reinserted without prior consensus in the talk page. --T*U (talk) 07:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

A wise decision, full support from me. There is a map of Europe, and everyone knows that south is at the bottom of a conventional map. The remaining details can be in the prose. There never will be the definition of Southern Europe. Different criteria will lead to different divisions into subregions, culinary Southern Europe is not meteorological Southern Europe. As for all those organizations: bureaucrats will continue to arbitrarily split & merge subregions (which correspond to internal administrative departments in those organizations) driven by funding and the result of the lastest McKinsey spree. –Austronesier (talk) 10:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Next step

Further to the arguments above about the infobox, we should take a look at other parts of the article. The section "Population" with the subsection "Largest urban areas" are ridden with exactly the same problem as the infobox: The selection of countries is dependent on a clear definition and/or inclusion criteria, which we do not have. Unless we can agree on such criteria, the list is WP:OR. Regarding the cities/urban areas, the problem is even larger, since we also would need to agree on what kind of definition we should follow for the cities: city proper?, municipality?, built-up area?, metropolitan area?. We would need to take the numbers from sources that followed the same criteria for counting the population, if we had agreed on the geographical criteria in the first place.

I am removing the section and subsection. If anyone wants to recreate such section, feel free to present an outline of the section with inclusion criteria here in the talk page before reentering. --T*U (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

This is why you should not gradually delete information and end up creating disinformation. These deletions do not have to be and concern southern Europe. You can however modify them.--Julio188red (talk) 08:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I would say simply create the section with largest urban areas (ok, excluding Romania and Moldova as they show up only on one map if I am correct). Add ″UN geoscheme class. used for statistical convenience″ or something like that. Different definitions of the region are nicely given in either way, so people can choose which city to include in what they see as Southern Europe. Like choosing bread or bottle of wine. True, no clear definitions are given but let us not make it too difficult for ourselves because of that. If UN can create a map for ″statistical convenience″, then we can use it for similarly noble reason! — Boleynn (talk) 01:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

"generally includes"

@Vic Park: Thank you for your edits to this article. They certainly constitute clear improvements. I have, however, some difficulties with the expression generally includes these countries and regions in the second sentence. As far as I can see, that claim is not really sourced, and I am uncertain if it even is possible to source it. It would need a source that not only listed states, but that also evaluated various definitions and listings that exist. Given only the different definitions mentioned in the article, it is doubtful that the claim is even true. As an example, none of the maps presented in the 'Other classifications' section include Bulgaria, far less Romania. So are they really "generally included"? Before your edits, the text said may include, which is a possible solution. Another possibility would be to add some or all of .... Thoughts? --T*U (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. These countries have been included as part of Southern Europe (including South-eastern Europe and South-western Europe) in the regions of Europe article, which gathered several different definitions from multiple sources. I agree with your suggestion though, I reckon "some or all of" is a more WP:NPOV way of compiling a list of all possible Southern European countries. I will go and change the wording. Vic Park (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Eastern Thrace but not southern France ?

Is there a good reason for having removed southern France from this article ? How is it possible to think that a city like Marseille and an island like Corsica aren't part of Southern Europe while cities like Turin or Milan would be part of it ? If you put just a part of Turkey (Eastern Thrace !), I cannot understand why you could not put a part of France, at least the regions bordering the mediterranean sea (Corsica, Provence, Languedoc) --Matieu Sokolovic (talk) 08:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Southern France is obviously part of Southern and Mediterranean Europe, as all sources indicate. A British francophobe on this Talk page insisted that France below the Loire river should be considered part of Southern Europe, this doesn't match the usual definitions of Southern France though and moreover it'd put Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, etc. within Southern Europe. The correct definition of Southern France as in the corresponding article is the area below Marais Poitevin: roughly below 45.5°. I've updated the map accordingly. Dyadique78 (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

@Matieu Sokolovic corsica is part of the Italian geographycal area so it is indeed southern Galdur73 (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)