Nakhichevan is part of Azerbaijan and should be light pink, not dark pink.--JWB 08:10, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

On the Europe page is written this explanation on the right of the map: "Some states have territory lying in both Europe and Asia (Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Georgia). Their Asian territory is coloured light pink. Some states that lie entirely on the Asian continent are considered part of Europe because of cultural and historical reasons (Armenia, Cyprus). They are coloured dark-pink. Azerbaijan's exclave of Nakhchivan is also coloured dark-pink because it is not a continuous extension of Azerbaijan's territory." Also see point e) below. Alinor 20:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The map states without qualification that Turkey is a European state, which is not universally accepted. Calsicol 07:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Read the 'note' on Turkey on the Europa page - "European Turkey comprises territory to the west and north of the Bosporus and the Dardanelles straits". The map deals with geographical Europe mainly. I don't know anyone that does not accept that Turkey HAS european TERRITORY. For details look at Transcontinental nation.Alinor 20:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

There seems to exist several problems with this map due to different and not overlapping definitions of Europe:

• The map is presented as a political one. Does that mean, exclusively, a map representing the borders between Sates within the strict geographic limits of Europe? Then no consideration about cultural and historic reasons should be present.

Only the green areas are representing States within the strict geographic limits of Europe. Asian parts of transcontinental states are colored differently becouse of the ever-continuing debate "if-to-include-Turkey, etc.". Cultural/Historical considerations are colored differently, again to not be POV-ed and to cover both points of view - "inclusive" and "exclusive" in relation to the disputable states (Cyprus, Armenia). Alinor 20:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• What are the strict geographic limits of Europe? This question is pertinent as to the geographic status of Cyprus and the countries of the Caucasus.

This question is elaborated much more broadly at Transcontinental nation.Alinor 20:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• If considerations other then that of the borders between States are present, such as cultural and historic, then the following remarks must be made:
  • a) The map presents no specific colour for countries that, being culturally European, have part of their territory outside of geographic Europe (such as Russia).

I don't get this one - the asian part of Russia is colored pink, the european part - green. What other do you suggest? Alinor 20:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• • b) The status of culturally European given to Turkey, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia is highly disputed (particularly the first two).

"Culturaly european" status is given only to Armenia and Cyprus (dark-pink, see description of colors at the Asia-subsection here). Turkey, Azerbaijan, Russia, Georgia, Kazakhstan are colored with light-pink that means "continious asian territory of a state that has european territory".Alinor 20:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• • c) If Georgia is culturally European, then point a) is relevant.

"culturally european" is applied only to geographicaly purely asian countries (Cyprus, Armenia). That is done mostly becouse of the paradox of these states closely participating in european political/economic/cultural affairs - mainly membership in the Council of Europe and European Union. Those states that have european territory (like Russia and Kazakhstan) do NOT get ANY-"cultural"-label here - I think that it is better to leave this cultural debate to some other much less geographical page/picture.Alinor 20:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• • d) If Armenia is culturally European, then what to do with its de facto control of the Nagorno-Karabakh enclave (and areas between that enclave and Armenia), witch are de jure part of Azerbaijan?

These territorial disputes are also out-of-scope here. Let's deal with de-jure and internationaly accepted borders, so Nagorno-Karabakh is shown as part of Azerbaijan. Alinor 20:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• • e) If Azerbaijan is not culturally European, then the Nakhichevan enclave should not appear as part of Europe.

Good point. Again - this is not a map showing "cultural" distinctions - see point c). Maybe the cultural affiliation of Azerbaijan should be cleared at its pages. Until then - we could color the Nakhichevan exclave gray or light-pink.Alinor 20:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• • f) Is Kazakhstan culturally European?

see point c) - not important for the map, "culturaly european" or not - this will not change its coloring here.Alinor 20:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• • g) Are the regions of Caucasian Russia (namely autonomous republics such as Chechnya or Kalmukia) culturally European?

see point c), see point d) - this is entierly out of scope - this is not "cultural" map, the borders that are shown on the map are only the Europe/Asia border and the internationaly recognized state borders. Sub-state entities like Chechnya (or Montenegro or Kosovo or Transinistria in Moldova, etc.) are not an object for this map.Alinor 20:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe the best thing to do is try to come up with the map that does acknowledge these ambiguities! The Ogre 15:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I hope that at least some points are done now.Alinor 20:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion the place for this debate should be here: Talk:Transcontinental nation.Alinor 20:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the general opinion over Turkey, Azerbaijan and Russia, light green should not be "extension over Asia of European States" but "extension over Europe of Asiatic States". The Cases of Armenia, Georgia and Cyprus is actually those of "European States beyond Europe"

How should we color Greenland - as dark pink (meaning "culturaly european, geographicaly north american") or leave it as it is now - gray (meaning "non-european geographicaly")?Alinor 20:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's really culturally European. To me, it seems to belong more to the aboriginal inhabitants of northern Canada. Nightstallion 14:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Agree, but we should also admit that it has big Danemark influence, Danemark people live there, etc. My opinion is to leave it gray/north american, but becouse the 'problem' with 'cultural coloring' of territories has arisen I wanted that we clear this issue as well...Alinor 15:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Danish or Danes*. Greenland is under Danish control, we (yes, I'm Danish) control their military and foreign politics, for these reasons it is considered a part of the EU. As a reminder; when the US wanted to put their missile defence system on Greenland, it was Denmark who had to discuss the issue, but the EU got involded, due to the fact that Denmark is a member of the EU. So yes, Greenland is a part of the EU, but not of Europe. --Svippong 13:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

In fact, Greenland is not part of the EU since 1985, it's only an associated territory -- more so than the Faroes, but far less than, say, Gibraltar. —Nightstallion (?) 20:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

There are dotted lines along the 'borders' between England, Scotland, and Wales. They should not be there, deserving to be be demarcated less than the Russian republics, Swiss cantons, German states, Belgian regions, Spanish autonomous communities do. Bastin8 14:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. If the UK constituent countries are to be marked, then the Russian republics ought to be shown too, or atleast every region in Europe with legislative authority (for ex. Scotland, Karelia, Valencia, Walonia...) Andelarion 13:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)