This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Languages C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Europe C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

The map with the isocodes is not an improvement in any way over the other map (well, apart from showing iso codes). It's less accurate in many regions (Brittany is French speaking, not Breton speaking; Irish Gaelic is not nearly as widespread; indicating that Russian speakers are spread throughout Estonia is just plain wrong etc.) The other map is by far more accurate for current language use in Europe. Jeppiz (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is an improvement in almost every way, because the map you keep restoring is unreferenced. You may want to review the image page and see exactly how much effort went into making it fully based on actual references. The map uses hatching to represent the presence of significant bilingualism. The hatching doesn't indicate a specific percentage, so it isn't clear how you would gauge just how "widespread" Breton is being represented as in the map. The hatching in the map has been hand-crafted following File:Percentage of breton speakers in the breton countries in 2004.png. Etc. You are perfectly free to further improve it, e.g. by introducing various types of hatching based on percentage. You will find that you will spend a week of work on improving the granularity of information represented, only to face increased criticism because increased density of information in the map will mean more details will be open to criticism.

While we do not have any linguistic map that is "perfect", the map you seem to prefer, File:Languages1.svg, is completely unreferenced. It originated as a rough paint job in 2008[3]. In 2015, someone added a sprinkling of minority languages[4]. Then in 2017, someone else added "Detailization and corrections on most countries", without any tractable references.

• It now gives the distribution of minority speakers, such as Sami or Moksha, almost to the resolution of a single pixel (maybe 20 km)? Who kept track of all the Sami and Moksha speakers and came up with this pattern? Why is this gargantuan work not referenced in any way?
• I see that you are claiming there are exactly four contiguous pockets of Tatar speakers in Crimea. What is your reference for this?
• I see you are claiming the division of Scots vs. English in Shetland shows the presence of English in the southern tip, the southwestern tip and the northeastern tip. This is very interesting, as the population of Shetland is about 20k and strongly concentrated in Lerwick. I would be very interested in your source for this particular pattern
• etc. etc.

We now end up with a highly detailed map of Europe that would be completely unable to withstand any kind of criticism remotely similar to the kind you apply to the map that replaces insanely accurate division of terrain by hatching and bases this on actual references listed on the image talkpage. --dab (𒁳) 09:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Languages1.svg is prettier, more pleasing to the eye. I find the level of detail rather implausible, without generous sourcing. Hence we should stick with Languages-Europe.svg for now. Batternut (talk) 11:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of opinions, it would be good if Dartsss and dab would stop edit warring. (I am not sure why dab is claiming I "keep" reverting, as I've edited exactly one time, but that's hardly important). Of course we can list errors with each map, so here goes:

The map claims that Russian is spoken throughout Estonia (in contrast to Latvia where dab claims it's only in the Eastern part). Not only is this unsourced, it's contrary to the Estonian and Latvian censuses. So the map is wrong for both countries according to our sources.

According to the map, the Turkish speaking areas in Bulgaria have shrunk a lot since the latest census. What is the source for this claim?

The map claims that Danish is still spoken throughout Scania. That was the case around 400 years ago. The Scanian dialects, while containing some Danish traits, have been Swedish for at least 300 years, so why claim they are Danish?

In Scotland, parts of the Highlands are claimed as Gaelic speaking even if no Gaelic speakers remain. Hard to find a reason for that.

The Republic of Ireland is indicated as bilingual Irish and English, Northern Ireland as English only. Yet there are areas of Northern Ireland with a higher concentration of Irish speakers than many parts of the Republic, so why this distinction.

Why is Corsica coloured bilingual but Sardinia monolingual. Sardinian is every bit as much alive as Corsican.

How come the entire Catalan area is given as bilingual when parts of the Welsh area is given as only Welsh. There are far larger entirely Catalan speaking areas than Welsh speaking areas.

Why are the Sápmi areas of Sweden and Norway indicated as bilingual, but in Finland as Sápmi only? This does not correspond to any census in these countries, quite the opposite.

When were the Åland islands swallowed by the sea?

Why are all Swedish speaking areas of Finland given as bilingual, but Swedish in most of Sweden as Swedish only? The areas with the highest concentrations of native Swedish speakers are in Finland, not in Sweden (unless censuses for both countries are wrong).

Compared to other errors, the indication of a Yiddish speaking minority in Western Ukraine is only off by some 25 years, but it's wrong none the less (unless the creator is aware of things not know to the rest of us).

In Romania, the German minority is as overstated as the Hungarian is understated. There is not one municipality in Romania in which German speakers make up even 1/3 of the population, and the only village in which they are over 30% (Brebu Nou) is home to only 86 people... In contrast, there are large areas where Hungarians make up 80-90%, yet they are ignored. The idea seems to be to color strong Hungarian majorities bilingual, and even if Hungarians make up a plurality, it's given as monolingual Romanian. Why?

Gallo-Romance languages such as as Venetian, Lombard and Piemontese are indicated to be Italian, in contrast with linguistic consensus. How come?

Looking forward to the sources for these spectacular claim in this "fantastic" map. Jeppiz (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nonemansland: Could you help us in this discussion by sharing with us the sources you used in the compilation of your splendid language map File:Languages1.svg? Batternut (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As Nonemansland, the uploader of Languages1.svg, is blocked, we may never know what sources he/she had for their map. Batternut (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's been more than two weeks since I gave a rather long list of original research in the map (see above). Since then, nobody has addressed any of those points nor presented any sources to support them. That being the case, I have removed the map for now. As I agree that the other map is not ideal either, I have not reverted to that version either. While having a map would be good, no map is still less bad than having a map filled with errors and original research. Jeppiz (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article would certainly benefit from a more detailed map, and I very much look forward very much to Dbachmann's responses to those arguable criticisms made 2 months ago of his generally useful map! Batternut (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dartsss. Before adding again the map in Europe#Languages, we should have a consensus here.

You added references in the map description about the Catalan language, but they don't match with the map. For example, why did you mark Garrotxa as Spanish-speaking when everyone there knows that is one of the most Catalan-speaking regions? Your regions seem to be completely invented and they don't have nothing to do with the sources you provided later.

As Jeppiz said a year ago, the map should be removed, until this point and the last year points are sourced. --FogueraC (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The map is painted according to the census source[5] showing the majority of the inhabitants that can speak Catalan in Valencia and a source showing Catalan vs. Spanish peakers in the Baleares[6][7]. I assume the dispute is about Catalan in Catalonia. I can leave two suggestions for Catalonia, now:

1. [8] source for Comarques of Catalonia(page 26). Estimate published by the University of Oxford, and according to something like a massive reasearch on internet trends. I adjusted Catalonia according to this source, because it shows further breakdown by settlements that is mantained in the rest of the areas of the map.

2. [9] source for Provinces of Catalonia. If the first source is controversial, I think this one's accuracy is beyond doubt. If we use this source, we should include three provinces as Spanish speaking because 39%, 36% and 28% are reported to have spoken Catalan as a habitual language in the provinces of Tarragaona, Penedes and Metropolita.

I am also open to applying different data from newly suggested sources. But this is the only data I have now. Dartsss (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok about Valencia. The source about Mallorca says that the only regions where Spanish speakers are majority are Palma and Llevant, but in the map Tramuntana is also marked as Spanish speaking. About Catalonia, the second source it's clearly more accurate than the first one. --FogueraC (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can apply the second source. Dartsss (talk) 04:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As FogueraC says, and as I pointed out a year ago, there are numerous errors with the maps. There is absolutely no consistency whatsoever. In some countries, only one language is show even though many are spoken. In others, the opposite is true. To take but one (of many) examples: why do we not show the Hungarian minority in Romania (a regional majority, large area, lots of speakers) while we do show speakers of Gaelic in the Scottish Highlands (below 10% even in the Highlands). It just doesn't make any sense at all. And why on earth do we claim that the area around St Petersburg isn't Russian speaking? Some of my ancestors came from there, and they spoke Ingrian and Finnish - 120 years ago. Today it's completely Russian. For now, I'm removing the first two maps. The rest of the maps are a bit better, but the first two are misleading to the point of no maps at all being preferable. Jeppiz (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As dab says, Jeppiz didn't show enough of a constructive attitude. Jeppiz was right as the map was unrefernced, But I have also some news to add, as I attempted to list the sources in File:Languages1.svg. Which first two maps and what area around Saint Petersburg? If you have any remarks, please, back them with sources and add them to the map. Remarks from personal experience are not a reliable source. None other user has showed sources so far... I have added about a dozen of sources for Russia alone. This is versus the insisting to remove the maps based on personal experience. 04:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

A bit bewildered why Dartsss think (a) that an ad hominem comment from over a year ago is an argument and (b) why Dartsss thinks themselves the judge of what is constructive. I have laid out a considerable number of errors in the two removed maps. Stating obvious and general facts like the existence of the Hungarians in Romania or the status of Scottish Gaelic is not exactly "personal experience", it is general knowledge. Citing common knowledge is not only not necessary, it is actively discouraged by current policies. Kindly read WP:BLUE. As for the factual arguments, they remain the same. Jeppiz (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great care has been taken to only list speakers geographically in Europe. This is complicated by diaspora populations due to recent migration, which have their own section. Yes, tehre are about 10 million native speakers of Arabic in Europe Nevertheless, Arabic does not get an entry in the "list of languages" because these communities are dispersed migrant communities with no homeland in Europe. (this may change in the future, e.g. if France or Belgium give Arabic official regional status in heavily Arabic-dominated parts of their territory, but the list is supposed to represent the situation now, not at some hypothetical future time).

Exactly the same situation holds for Armenian, Georgian, Tamil, etc. etc. Please don't cite "total number of speakers" in the list. Yes, Armenian has "7 million native speakers", but then English has "400 million native speakers", i.e. worldwide. Native speakers of English in Europe number 60 million, in the UK and Ireland. Armenian speakers in Europe number about 1 million, and consist almost entirely of the Armenian diaspora of migrant workers in the Russian Federation.

Turkish is the most difficult case, as it has both 12 million native speakers in European Turkey, and 3 million native speakers in non-European immigrant communities in Western Europe (mostly Germany).

Please respect the scope of this list, and use list of languages by number of speakers to cover worldwide number of speakers. --dab (𒁳) 10:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:JJ 25, you cite Ethnologue for a number of 12 million L1 speakers of Armenian in Europe. However, the source in question has "3,140,000 in Armenia (2001 census). Population total all countries: 5,900,080."[10], it follows that at most 2.8 million Armenian speakers can be in Europe. In reality, there is about 1 million, i.e. the disaspora community in Russia and Ukraine, which is duly mentioned under "immigrant languages".

Misrepresenting the content of references is quite serious misbehaviour if done on purpose. Please be more careful. You cite, without reference, that "Armenian is an official minority language in the following countries: Cyprus, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Ukraine". I would be interested in this claim, please feel free to cite appropriate references for this. Please also note that "Europe" is a geographical term, while "Indo-European" is a linguistic one. Hindi is not a "language of Europe", but Kalmyk is, because India is not geographically in Europe, while Kalmykia is. Please do not re-insert your unreferenced material, or misrepresentation of the content of SIL Ethnologue. If this was an honest mistake, please learn from it and try to research and discuss your contributions. --dab (𒁳) 11:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the Caucasus is in Europe or not is one matter... but why are the North Caucasian languages included in the non-Indo-European section whereas Kartvelian languages are not? Is there a specific reason? 81.156.88.100 (talk) 23:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That should be fixed.--Calthinus (talk) 05:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TU-nor and KIENGIR: let's start with this -- the table says 23 million Azeris. There are only 10 million inhabitants of Azerbaijan, not all of whom are ethnic Azeris as we also have Lezgins, Juhuris, Talysh, etc etc. Most of the rest are in Iran. Okay some expansive definitions of Europe include all of Azerbaijan, not just the 1/3 of it north of the Greater Caucasus -- sure. Side note: I take issue with the fact that we are using the most possibly expansive definition with regard to the South Caucasus so as to include Armenia, yet somehow this does not apply to Turkey -- I don't think there is any definition of Europe that includes Armenia but not Anatolian Turkey. That aside, I also don't think there is a single definition of Europe that includes Iranian Azerbaijan in Europe. But correct me if I'm wrong?--Calthinus (talk) 05:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this case we actually have clear inclusion criteria: The intro to the table says that we follow the traditional Caucasus/Ural line and only include people in the European parts. I have reverted the "expansion" of Azerbaijan and removed the second(!) entry for Armenia. --T*U (talk) 07:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TU-nor and Calthinus: To play "devli's advocate", perhaps it is high-time to adapt our criteria of the definition of Europe for this article. While yes, in fact most of the Caucasus is geographically in Western Asia- politically, culturally and linguistically all three have more connections to Europe then Asia. This is reinforced by Georgia's, Armenia's and Azerbaijan's membership in the Council of Europe. The main criteria for membership is that a state must be "European". The Council of Europe has also affirmed that the Caucasus as a whole has geopolitical and sociological connections with Europe. It seems that the definition of what should and should not be included is a tad bit archaic- there has been many adjustments over the decades to the concept of what is "Eastern Europe" and "Greater Europe" since the collapse of the Soviet-Union and the emergence of the EU. Academically speaking, we can all agree that the concepts of "Eastern Europe" and "Greater Europe" has pushed ever more eastwards since the fall of the Berlin Wall. And at the very least- for consistency sake- the three Caucasus countries, Cyprus, Turkey and Russia should be included as all six countries are accepted on the main article of Europe. As editors have done there, notes have been included beside Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Georgia, Russia and Turkey stating that while yes, geographically these countries are partially in Western Asia, they are included for their geopolitical and sociological links. So, perhaps the same can be done here? Furthermore, I agree with Calthinus that Anatolian Turkey should be included if the Caucasus is and by no means should Iranian Azerbaijan be included- I mean, we do have to draw the line somewhere! Just wanted to share my thoughts but I do not wish to be combative with anyone, so if you vehemently disagree, lets just please be respectful. Cheers! Archives908 (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with adapting the criterion so as to include Asian Turkey plus the "South Caucasus" geopolitically defined. I just want consistency and not a bizarre gerrymander where Turkey is surrounded by Europe on all sides (South -- Cyprus, East-- Armenia) but not Europe itself. However, if we implement this change, there would need to be many changes in the table. Turkish, Kurdish and Laz have to be increased/added, and the large concentrations of speakers of Arabic, Balkan languages and Caucasus languages would need to be accounted for.--Calthinus (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Calthinus: Yes, I couldn't agree more- consistency is paramount. There will be much work to be done should we progress with these additions. Above-all, this article should display a level of consistency with other Euro-related articles which include these countries; especially as they are all listed in the "50 nations of Europe." Should they be added, we can add notes much like editors have done on List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe in order to appease editors who follow more out-dated definitions of Europe. Furthermore, if we update the leade to a more holistic and inclusive definition of Europe it may hope to finally limit the almost never ending "revisions battle" of what should/should not be included. Any thoughts from other editors? Much appreciation for your input, Cheers! Archives908 (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Archives908, Calthinus, and TU-nor:, thank you for all of your comments. My point is - as a geography enthusiast as well, even commensurating older and recent views about Europe inlcusion, including even FIFA as well - that regardless of some fair points introduced and explained, but Turkey is not included or counted to Europe (but it is acknowledged a little part is geographically part of Europe). It is true that after the fall of the Soviet Union the inclusion and the politically rendered west-east divisuon has been updated (as falsely any central-being has been ignored), henceforth Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia has been counted to Europe, also per fair geographic argumentation (the question and relation btw. to Asia is another, better cultrual and historical aspect). Thus I consider anything consisent and until, if we follow this - since almost 30 years - traditional grouping a do not include any region of Iran or Turkey itself or similar (i.e. FIFA may argue that 200 km2 of Kazakhstan is geographically part of Europe, so their switch to UEFA is somehow explained, however Israel is a traditional member since AFC rejetcs them, but apart from football that really does not count here, just because of that 200 km2 Kazakhstan will not be a European country...also we don't include Hungarians residing in Asia, or the U.S., i.e. regardless in the Caucasus adjacent countries and their populations may lie compactly thorugh the borders of Europe and Asia, we should stick the the healthy combination of officialy included countries & geographic Europe).(KIENGIR (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

KIENGIR eh there are many ways to look at that. In terms of folklore, food, music, physical appearance (architecture, clothes, people...), Armenia and Azerbaijan are both rather Iranian; Georgia and Turkey too but tangibly less so. Geopolitically, from a Middle Eastern perspective, Turkey is "West European" (in addition to Middle Eastern), geography be damned, in the sense that Cyprus/Greece are i.e. they participated in Western structures and have a different political culture than countries in the former East bloc. Georgia is Georgia; Armenia and Azerbaijan are kind of "states between Iran and Russia" (and this defines them). Culturally, Turkey is again more like Greece on a wide range of matters; not just food/music but also exposure to the Western cultural trends, i.e. one thing that's measurable is that 40-50% of Turks support govt recognition of LGBT relationships, and that includes many Islamists who think so. In the S Caucasus, outside of parts of Baku and mayyyybe the most cosmopolitan of vegetarian restaurants in Tbilisi or Yerevan........ people tend to think "sodomy"/"perversion" etc should not be tolerated by society (it is still worse in the N Caucasus -- Muslims and Christians alike). I.e. see LGBT rights in Armenia#Public opinion; Georgia and Azerbaijan are probably not so different (maybe slightly more liberal by Azeris are richer, less religious and less rural, while Georgia is slightly more Westernized). The 97% oppose for Armenia in 2017 is actually less "Westernized" than Iran's 94%, notwithstanding the legal situation in Iran vis a vis the Islamic Republic. Actually in this matter Turkey is, if you ignore the occasional honor killing and just look at that 40%+ large minority, more "Western" than the non-Greek parts of the Balkans too. Geographically, a possible Europe-Asia boundary separating Iran from Azerbaijan is clear, a river, but the same cannot be said of Armenia's boundaries except for that with Iran. The Lesser Caucasus cuts across borders and rather slices up Armenia (alas most Armenian history happens on the "Asian" side of it in areas that are usually now part of Turkey, and it took one of the most horrific demographic events to push "Armenia" out of its historical core territory). Obviously all these places are also Middle Eastern, in addition to European, in different ways if we are talking culture/politics. I'm just showing another angle to demonstrate out how subjective this all is.

For what we should do, why dont we go with what's most useful? Does anyone really want to calculate language stats for regions and sub regions of countries -- based on what side of the Greater Caucasus/Bosporus countries are on? No, that would make most stats involving Azerbaijan and Turkey a headache. Better to just have all or nothing. 15 million plus Turks geographically in unambiguous Europe plus millions of Azeris north of the Greater Caucasus deeply complicates that however. So lets have them both in total. Then it's ridiculous to not have Georgia and Armenia once we have Turkey and Azerbaijan. I think this way puts the least burden on our stat collection. Thoughts?--Calthinus (talk) 07:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Calthinus and KIENGIR: For the sole reason of consistency- it is best to include all 3 Caucasus countries and Turkey as a whole; while clearly providing notes which make mention to the their transcontinental fluidity. It's the 21st Century, and the very definition of Europe has expanded and evolved- we cannot turn a blind eye to that. All encyclopedias change over time- they must in order to keep relevant. Wikipedia is no different. I have been browsing several "Euro-related" articles and again, the Caucasus countries and Turkey seem to be included- irrespective of geography. So, my argument is- why not update this article? Why not be consistent? Putting aside ones personal biases or preferences, the least we can do as editors is maintain a degree of consistency. Archives908 (talk) 12:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently able to access Internet only periodically, but just now I have a very limited "window". I agree that the traditional geographical definition currently used in the article is not necessarily the best (and certainly not the only) possible definition. It gives, however, well-defined inclusion criteria. I have nothing against including countries or parts of countries outside the current definition, but only if it can be done according to a new definition (or new inclusion criteria) that is supported by reliable sources. "I think country X should be included" is not an acceptable argument. We should not be discussing which countries or parts of countries to include, but the criteria themselves. --T*U (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TU-nor and Calthinus: Very well put! It seems the majority of us agree that the current inclusion criteria- and its limited, out-dated scope- is not the best. Establishing a new definition can get messy, so I'll put forth the first suggestion. Mind you, it is very simple, but a good way to avoid endless debate and confusion while also establishing a fair and inclusive definition of "modern Europe". In addition to the various regions and languages currently present on the list, I suggest the definition should include the languages present in all 47 member states of the Council of Europe and Belarus.^[1] Article 1(a) of the Statute states that any European State may become a member of the Council of Europe. Therefore, as ratified by the Council itself, the 47 current participating full members, are European.^[2] This is a good "place to start"- at the bare minimum. We can still keep (for the most part) the existing geographic constructs already present on the list. We would now focus on adding the remaining states of the Council of Europe which are not present, ie. Turkey and the Caucasus nations and include the languages within their respective geographic boundaries. This would also help to (finally!) set an "end point" for what is considered "Europe"... ie. no Israel, no Morocco, no Cape Verde. Again, it is a very simple suggestion- but one that is workable, to the point, efficient and above all, consistent with other articles. Archives908 (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Careful, neither of us said which definition is "right". That's not our job. Some people think Europe is this, some think it's that, some exclude all of Russia, some think Europe is not a valid unit and prefer "West Eurasia" all the way down to Yemen, some prefer no subdivision of Eurasia. Not our job to adjudicate this. But I'm fine using the OSCE definition as it does make our job easier.--Calthinus (talk) 17:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never once said that it was the only acceptable definition of Europe; I was merely providing a suggestion of how to structure/refine the list for this particular article. Agreed- that was my main point... by sticking to CoE or even OSCE definitions, it will make our job easier. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archives908 sorry that came off a bit spicy; I just didn't want to be misunderstood (choice of "careful" was unfortunate, my b).--Calthinus (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calthinus, yes you gave a good cultural, historical and ethnographical description of the situation, however I approached to topic the combination of geographical Europe and the most widely accepted-consensus (outside WP as well) about European countries and their inclusion. Thus I concur with T*U. However to as well agree in a way your argumentation and partially Archives908's, that we should take into account those states a way, which are not part of Europe on the whole, but geographically have some part it, so regarding Turkey, East Thrace may be mentioned and calculated primarily, but Turkey proper should not be included, just marginally in brackets may be mentioned data for the overall country (and similarly to AZE, ARM and GEO - regarding the parts outside Europe-proper [= I mean i.e. in clearly non-Eruopean countries, like Iran]), as they are not considered or accepted - even officially - as part of Europe. Because Russia's case has been mentioned, I have to add officially Russia is considered a European country, however, most of her part is lying in Asia. This shows as well the controversies more of us highlighted here. Hence the best is to tend to the most official classification (I know, this may be also debated what would count to that...maybe there should be a narrowed inclusion criteria, and an extended list of where the "debated" cases may be shown...)(KIENGIR (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

I am afraid it is not as simple as just "choosing" CoE membership as criterion (and certainly not OSCE). They are both organisations with their own agenda, and their membership criteria will always be dependent on what suits them as an organisation, in the same way that UEFA includes Israel and the European song contest includes Israel – and Australia. If CoE finds out that it would be convenient to have, say, Mongolia or any of the Central Asian republics as member states (as OSCE already has), the border of Europe will not move accordingly.

There is also nothing that forces us to include whole countries in the definition. If it was, we would also have to include the whole of Russia, and I somehow find it difficult to accept Vladivostok as a European city...

What we would need, is one or more WP:RS sources that defines Europe with a more "modern" definition, preferably also explaining that the traditional definition is obsolete. If not, we are stuck with what we have. --T*U (talk) 10:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TU-nor: TU-nor, I must respectfully disagree. By the logic of your argument, then none of the Caucasus countries, Cyprus, Russia or Turkey would be included in the main article of Europe- but they all are. I suggest all editors have a read through and examine the terminologies used and rationales provided for including those six countries. Nonetheless, my main argument was completely overlooked. I am arguing that we should display a level of consistency. Most euro-related articles do include these six countries within their parameters, so why are we choosing to exclude them from this article? Finally, I do not understand why countries like Iran, Israel, Australia and Mongolia are being brought up- to hypothesize that "one day they will become part of Europe" is crystal-balling and speculating to the extreme. Iran, Mongolia, Israel are not included on the main Europe article so I think it's a safe to say we should focus our attention on the 6 countries which sparked this discussion (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Georgia, Turkey and Russia). At the end of the day, I will agree with whatever the majority consensus is. But I do not agree that we should "stick with what we have" by default or because it is the easy thing to do. Cross-related articles should maintain a level of consistency- and this article is no exception to that rule. Thanks to all for this interesting conversation and hope everyone has a great weekend! Archives908 (talk) 14:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Calthinus: It's all good Calthinus, thanks so much for your input- I appreciate it! Archives908 (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the Caucasus countries, Cyprus, Russia and Turkey are included in the Europe article. Even according to the traditional definition, all of them except Armenia and Cyprus are partly in Europe, and those two have also traditionally often been included in an European context. Also do not forget Kazakhstan, which is also a transcontinental country in the traditional definition.

I have not recommended that we shall "stick with what we have". But we cannot just choose to use a definition that is convenient for us. That would be WP:OR. We need to have reliable sources for a new definition. If not, we will have to "stick with" the traditional definition, but of course making explanatory notes about every country that is straddling the border, or for other reasons being "borderline cases". --T*U (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archives908, T*U, I have to reinforce again Turkey is not included on the whole even in the Europe article, just 3% European part of it (correctly), similarly to Russia, though which in fact is considered European, but because her partial part in Europe that is even bigger then any other European country, however as well geographically only until the Ural mountains (correctly), etc. Soon we will see that any RS or the most accepted consensus would rely generally on the relevance and the the degree of extension of territories into Europe of transcontinental countries (even commensuarted with the fully involved ones).(KIENGIR (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

@TU-nor and KIENGIR: TU-nor, if you do not recommend that we should "stick with what we have", then what do you recommend? Both you and KIENGIR seem to be very experienced editors (which I respect); what workable suggestions can you bring forth? Because it seems that my argument of consistency isn't being recognized. Further, I tried to provide a logical base of where we can start (ie. using CoE definitions) which was not accepted. So in the spirit of improving this article (and maintaining a level of consistency), I'm quite curious to know your thoughts/ constructive ideas of what could work. Cheers! Archives908 (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! In my behalf (though I consider Tu-nor fully consistent) I think gave a clear line. Shortly reiterate: next to RS and common acceptance and official stance, the common segment of these with the geographic boundaries (with the partial addendum of affected countries statistics lying on non-European soil in brackets). However, my last comment pointed out, the trascontinental countries are decided to be counted to Europe by the size of the area they share from Europe (in accordance with the earlier sentence's content) = (Turkey not because of 3%, while Russia yes because it has even largest than any other European country. Regards!(KIENGIR (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Imo, although the Ural range is a much more dubious boundary than the Greater Caucasus or the Bosporus (it tapers out long before coming anywhere near the Caspian), we're not discussing Siberia or Kazakhstan, so it's irrelevant. The Europe/Asia boundary -- by far the most contentious boundary and many geographers just use "Eurasia" -- is most disputed where it is actually most geographically justifiable, that being the Greater Caucasus and the Bosporus, because of solely cultural and geopolitical factors. KIENGIR, you're correct Wiki doesn't really discuss a geographic definition where Anatolia is in Europe, whereas we do have line J on this [[11]]. But that is not a majority view among geographic definitions, which favor either F or G on that map. The southernmost boundary of Europe that would exclude Anatolia would be the Lesser Caucasus, line I, but that excludes almost all of Armenia too (edit: upon further inspection, I is not the Lesser Caucasus, which should indeed go further into Armenia -- but still leaves the more populated areas in "Asia"). Furthermore, both J and I exclude Cyprus, yet this page includes Cyprus -- or are you saying it should not? If I understand your position correctly, the proper implementation would be the exclusion of Turkey, but also Armenia, Cyprus, Georgia, and Azerbaijan -- all of these have the majority of their populations residing in Asia. If we revise that to use the minority Lesser Caucasus definition, we can add back only Georgia and Azerbaijan. So I am a bit confused. This started as a dispute about Armenian and Azeri. What exactly is your stance for what we should do?--Calthinus (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, no Cyprus I've never mentioned & never excluded. It is officialy acknowleged as a European country (though we know about de facto split and dispute with Turkey). As well I've never excluded Armenia, Gerorga and Azerbaijan for the same reasons I summarized and outlined before. As I summarized earlier my argument take usually as "mathematical" approach. Set A: RS and common acceptance and official stance, Set B: geographic inclusion. Result: Common segment of AB, having those transcontinental countries that are not included, but they share a part of Europe geographically, should explain anything regarding Asian parts in brackets...

Example: Russia is member set A? Yes. Russia is member set B? Only partially -> Result: Russia is part of the common segment of AB -> so considered a European country (but the Asian part are discussed in brackets)

Example: Turkey is member set A? No. Turkey is member set B? Only partially -> Result: Turkey is not part of the common segment of AB -> so not considered a European country (only the European part is discussed, but the Asian part are discussed in brackets)

In a way you may say memberhsip of Set A is definitive, for the end result, concerning the most inclusive line the map you provided it would as well coincide in ratio with the size of being part of Europe (= in other words, the bigger area shared from Europe, the more possible member of Set A).(KIENGIR (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Yeah, excuse me, it's long. I do have some questions about how "RS and common acceptance/official stance". Acceptance by whom? Whose official stance? All five of these countries self-identify as European; in terms of international organizations they all likewise can go either way in terms of lay people acceptance, EU stance, I don't really think song contests and football dshould be decisive etc. The US definition, NATO notwithstanding, counts all five as Asian (NATO allows only for the invitation of "other European states" -- well, Georgia almost getting a MAP arguably started a war too). The only one for whom this is not contentious geopolitically is Cyprus. National Geographic has this definition [[12]]: Today, Europe is home to the citizens of Albania, Andorra, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Kosovo, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland), and Vatican City. -- so, for Nat Geographic, which is honestly a less controversial source than political organizations, Turkey, Cyprus and Russia are in, South Caucasus is out. I'm not saying this is what we should do. I'm demonstrating how RS ... go both ways.--Calthinus (talk) 00:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calthinus, it seems based on the edit history, that this debate was sparked following your removal of content. If I may ask, what was your precise rational/reasoning for removing long-standing, sourced content PRIOR to seeking consensus on the talk page? In terms of the map you referenced previously, you do realize that it was created in 2008, right? Surely if we are trying to improve this article, we should probably use more current references. KIENGIR I must agree with your rationale/ mathematical take on this. Perhaps we should reconsider restoring the article as it was for the time being? If any editors have any objections, they should state their claim and provide academic sources. Otherwise, the list seemed to actually be pretty in-line with CoE definitions prior to Calthinus' revisions. And, if anything, we can improve the list further by making notes regarding geography as KIENGER has suggested. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Erm well, the page explicilty stated its definition -- "Europe" is taken as a geographical term, defined by the conventional Europe-Asia boundary along the Caucasus and the Urals. .... and then the two Armenian lines and the inclusion of Azeris all the way into Iran pretty flagrantly violated that. Long standing is more of an embarrassment in that case. If you state a policy on a page, you follow it.--Calthinus (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And now that I have presented RS on the "acceptance" of Turkey as part of Europe under some definition by a fairly authoritative source (National Geographic) which simultaneously excludes the S Cauc... the variables in KIENGIR's mathematical equation have changed. Not that I endorse this idea. To me, having seen a wide range of different versions of "which countries are in Europe", the RS are no less divided than the laypeople. --Calthinus (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You literally just confirmed my point- following your revision, this article is no longer consistent with other euro-related articles which do include Turkey and the Caucasus- irrespective of geographic boundaries. And this is not acceptable either. Those articles all have notes which clearly state that these countries are included due to their sociological and political links with Europe, while also confirming geographic connections with Asia. If I'm not mistaken, KIENGIR had eluded to possibly doing the same for this article- thus establishing a degree of consistency. Also, I would question how much emphasis you are placing on National Geographic as determining "what Europe is". National Geographic has certainly not been able to legally ratify any definition of Europe. The Council of Europe on the other hand (a stable, credible, nearly 70 year old institution representing 820 million people across 47 nations) has passed legally bounding treaties confirming the "Europeanness" of these countries, irrespective of any geographic boundaries set. Surely, this must count for something. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Before my edit, no, the page was not consistent with pages like Geography of Europe because it excluded Turkey. I am not unambiguously calling for the S Caucasus to be excluded. What I was disputing here was KIENGIR's assertion that relevant RS widely do not consider Turkey to be "European" while applying the term to the S Cauc-- apolitical Nat Geo does the opposite and it is apolitical National Geographic-- unlike CoE, as TU-nor pointed out. Nevertheless I have indicated that I can support a position where we do use a geopolitical definition which broadly includes the S Cauc, Turkey and Cyprus (but on no grounds whatsoever Iranian Azerbaijan) -- this I believe is where I diverge from TUnor who doesn't want us changing definitions for convenience, and from KIENGIR on Turkey specifically. What I cannot accept is this hybrid gerrymandered definition where clearly non-geographic considerations are applied for 4 countries but not the one enormous country that separates all 4 of them from the bulk of Europe-- and worse, even East Thrace appears excluded for calculating speakers of Bulgarian, Bosniak, etc. As I have demonstrated, RS dont actually back this weird gerrymander -- and Nat Geo does the inverse. We either use a broad geopolitical definition ( all 5 in), geographic (all 5 out except for E Thrace, Quba/etc, and Tusheti/Svaneti/etc), a consistent geographic+RS "acceptance" (Cyprus in, the other 4 are disputed), or a narrow geopolitical definition (again only Cyprus is in). No double standards, no gerrymandered "continents". Id like to point out that in linguistic typology -- since this is a language page -- there is again an argument for specifically Cyprus being in "Europe" (specifically Greek being part of the Balkan sprachbund) and none of the others (the Caucasus has it's own speech area which is quite different typologically from both the Near East and from Europe). Also, I'd be willing to consider a separate table for these 5 states (again, not grouping them with Siberia and Kazakhstan, which they have obviously nothing to do with) as a sort of compromise.--Calthinus (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Calthinus: I understand your point Calthinus, although I do find it a tad odd how you stated that your not "unambiguously calling for the S Caucasus to be excluded", but you were the one removing them in the first place. Nonetheless, I think we can agree on a compromise! Other well written euro-related articles (I've come across five or six) do include these countries in various tables (with notes), however I think your suggestion of including these countries in a separate table is an excellent idea. We can included a few sentences which clearly outlines the sociological connections to Europe and a geographical connection to Asia. Have we reached a consensus? Are all editors on board with Calthinus' proposal? Regards, Archives908 (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What I was removing was the violation of the page's self-described policy. Not removing the SC for the sake of removing the SC. We may yet have a consensus for some way to include the info. Regarding the separate table for "geopolitical extended Europe" (this is a page about languages -- relevant to geopolitics after all), what do @TU-nor: and @KIENGIR: think of our agreement? --Calthinus (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not quite sure I understand what you mean by "including these countries". If you mean to include all of Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey plus Armenia in the numbers for the relevant languages, then you will have to include all of Russia, both Russian-speakers and other languages spoken in all of Russia, and I can somehow not see Yakut as a "language of Europe". My suggestion would be to keep the geographic limitation as it is, but make an addition to the introduction in the section "List of languages". There it could be stated that the table also includes main languages of transcontinental countries (Russia, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Kazakhstan) and other countries closely associated with the continent (Armenia, Cyprus). The entries for the languages in those countries would then need to have explanatory notes just like it is currently done for i.e. Azerbaijani and Kazakh, specifying how many speakers there are inside geographical Europe, but also giving total numbers. --T*U (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TU-nor to clarify -- yes, I am referring to Cyprus, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Turkey, and Georgia -- all Euro/Near Eastern countries, not Euro/Central Asian. Kazakh, actually, is already handled on the page. Explanatory notes yes. As I understand it presently, what Archives908 and I appear to agree on is as separate table for these five edge cases, where their entire territory, European or not, is included. This would also mean that the speakers of Russian in the S Cauc are handled there, likewise for Balkan langs in Turkey, et cetera. Russia east of the Urals, imo, should be handled separately... perhaps with its own table. The reality is that the cultural and geopolitical factors -- nothing remotely geographic in consideration -- that apply for these five countries, simply don't apply to Siberia which is neither geopolitically integrated in "Europe" nor aspires to be, nor is it much involved with "European" history [buuuuuuut another reality is that speakers of Sakha/Yakut... probably have a diaspora in Moscow, but let's ignore that for our sanity.] --Calthinus (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a good workable option; it's realistic, modernizes the inclusion criteria while still respecting traditional geographic views, consistent with other articles, and provides the reader with a greater scope of information. If executed well, it can definitely be a good overall improvement to this article! Archives908 (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only I do not understand how this extra table shall be construed, since it is the languages that are the defining factor, not the countries. Cyprus has two languages, and both of them are already in the main table. Should they also be in the additional table? Do we really need an extra table at all? --T*U (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TU-nor It is done on the basis of political geography purely, with language stats on the basis of residence in those five states only. Numbers would be subtracted from the main table, WP:CALC is not syn. Admittedly this is solely for the purpose of compromise. So essentially like this:

• Greek: numbers from Cyprus subtracted from old table and placed on new table; these are (when possible) added to numbers from Istanbul and Pontus still in Turkey plus the small communities in Georgia and Armenia. Same style as the existing table -- note where official, and where it is a(n) (un)recognized minority lang
• Bulgarian: numbers from Turkey (currently not under Bulgarian) are absent on the table currently although they are in E Thrace (ironically). We just include them in the table here, separate from Bulgarian in the main table. Likewise for Albanian, Bosniak, Meglenoromanian, Circassian, Crimean, et cetera.
• Armenian: restored to new table but not including the narrow-European diaspora, just the ones in the five countries for the table (AGACT). For its Europe-proper diaspora, it is treated as such. If we really care the autochtonous Cherkesogai community in Armavir alone can be counted under the narrow Europe table. No one really cares though.
• Georgian: for now, just like Armenian. In the future if we really care, the autochtonous Georgian communities in the N Cauc (small -- in N Ossetia) are counted under narrow Europe.
• Azeri: for now, like Armenian. In the future, autochtonous Azeri community in Dagestan is counted in the narrow Europe table only (this one is a bit more significant than Armavir, N Osset. Georgians as it has Derbent etc etc). Rest in the new table.
• Turkish: autochtonous Turkish(-speaking) communities in Bulgaria, Macedonia, Greece, Kosovo, Romania are counted under the main Europe table. On the other hand those in political Turkey, or in Georgia or Cyprus, are counted under the new table.
• other languages to be added for this new table only (ignoring newly established diaspora): Svan, Laz, Mingrelian, Kurdish, Zaza, Udi, Batsbi, Kryts, Khinalug, and Talysh. I'm sure I missed at least one but you get the idea. Regarding the communities in Azerbaijan speaking languages also spoken in Dagestan, as a matter of fact, none of these (Lezgin with 0.8 mil speakers plus some less significant ones) seem to not be on the table yet anyways, so clearly no one actually cares about them and we don't have to worry (:.

... et cetera. Make sense? --Calthinus (talk) 01:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calthinus, I also did not say else that surely I won't decide this question regarding UEFA or Eurovision. Archives908 understood and reinforced I made a good equation, "RS (= x) and common acceptance (= y) and official stance (=z)" has to be considered as well a common segment, as x, y or z may differ at some intances, but more measures of them will produce an inclusive subset (hence, NatGeo I as well do not consider the best source, but in any ordinary case in WP if there are more RS - even conflicting ones - per rule the majority would win, but there are also cases, where a majority falsity is the most often cited, in that case good faith should lead and use the best accurate source - i.e. reference to non-existent Czechoslovakia between 1939-1945). Also Archives gave good point regarding what we should consider common acceptance or official stance, more detailed the latter about some competent organizations, "common acceptance" may be on the borderline of RS and i.e. geographical maps regarding the inclusion or borders - mathematically at all inclusion criteria we produce common segments, as we can safely assume if for a country x, y, z holds consistently at more samples, then it would satisfy inclusion. Still concur with T*U's arguments. However, the issue became so complicated, I am afraid we may hardly visualize now what the end result of the planned agreement would be, I think you should present here in the talk in a way the new table or similar, before launching it, then I could exactly react and answer regarding support (and yes, my cutting edge is Turkey, and we should not confuse the fact that if it is listed, it is listed becase of East Thrace, not because the full of it or the country would be considered European. Also per my supposed "equation", Turkey is not excluded totally, geographically East Thrace has to be mentioned (in brackets the Asian-part related data), but Turkey cannot be listed as a European country because of Set A).(KIENGIR (talk) 02:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

As a compromise I find Calthinus' solution workable. It keeps the main table consistent with the given geographical definition. After all, language is distributed gegraphically rather then geopolitically, often not "willing to" follow given borders. I do think, however, that Kazakhstan – as an undisputedly transcontinental country – has to be included in the additional table. --T*U (talk) 07:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]