Talk:Southwestern Europe

Malta?

From the article: "While the Maltese language is Semitic, Malta has a clearly Roman-Catholic heritage."

I could reply "While the Polish language is Slavic, Poland has a clearly Roman Catholic heritage."

Do you really think Malta belongs? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say Malta belongs. We're talking about travel-regions, so it's more geography and culture we should be concerned about then language groups. We include England in Britain and Ireland, even though English isn't actuality a Celtic (British) language. If Malta is more closely related to Italy then any other European country, then I'm thinking it belongs. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but is this a geographical travel region? If it's an extra-region, it's one of Romance language and a common Roman past, and it probably should include Romania and Moldova as full members but exclude Malta. No-one ever suggested that Britain and Ireland constitute the "Celtic Europe" "region" before you did. I mean, I suppose this is all somewhat for the sake of argument, but I do think Malta is a really weak link, as I question how much more Latin its heritage is than that of many other non-Romance-speaking (or primarily non-Romance-speaking) former Roman provinces, such as you can see remains of, for example, in Croatia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The Maltese language is classified as a semitic and not a romance language. Nevertheless it is relevant that "about half of the vocabulary is derived from standard Italian and Sicilian" : w:Maltese_language Andrewssi2 (talk) 12:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

58% of English vocabulary is also derived from Latin and French, according to w:Foreign language influences in English. So should England and Ireland be part of "Latin Europe"? Probably not, right? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Well prior to its - relatively brief, all things considered - status as an "unsinkable aircraft carrier and naval base" for the Royal Air Force and British Royal Navy, Malta was ruled by some Catholic monastic order that used to do some fighting in the Outremer back in their day. In fact that only came to an end, when - naturally - Napoleon waltzed in. Plus it is geographically quite close to Italy and if you're not flying, you're pretty sure to be coming from Italy when you're headed for Malta. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

At least if we look at a map, out of the current region articles, it would fit best into the Latin Europe article. I mean, Malta is part of Europe and where would we otherwise put it? Right under Europe as its own category? But if we want to further reduce the number of regions in Europe, we could create a "mixed bag" region called Far Southeastern Europe (or something similar) and put Malta there together with Greece, Malta, Turkey and the Caucasus countries. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

A better question might be: given that this is supposed to eventually be an actual hierarchical region of Europe, where would Malta go if not here? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

For reference:

Criteria

Portugal

Spain

Andorra

France

Monaco

Italy

SM

Vatican

Malta

Gib.

NL

Belgium

Lux.

Switz.

Romania

Moldova

Roman Empire

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Little

Yes

Yes

Yes

Partly

Little

Romance language

Yes

Yes*

Yes

Yes*

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Partly

No

Partly

Partly

Partly

Yes*

Yes*

Catholic majority

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Partly

Little

No

Euro as currency

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Schengen area (de facto)

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

*=Except endemic minority languages

I don't think this is a hierarchical region of Europe, so I think Malta doesn't belong. Also, you could go from Tunisia to Malta and don't have to go to or from Italy to get there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

But the whole impetus behind the creation of this article was to reduce the number of subregions in the first level under Europe. So it is intended to eventually be a hierarchical region pending resolution of the associated discussion at Talk:Europe/Hierarchy. Obviously Malta needs to go in some region, and if not this one, then which one? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I like having Italy as essentially its own travel region, given just how many attractions there are there. I don't like the nomenclature of Italian Peninsula embracing Malta et al., but I think that tweaking the name somehow is less drastic and probably more useful to travelers than making this huge "Latin Europe" region hierarchical. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The Italian peninsula may have an exceptional density of UNESCO world heritage sites, but it isn't that much higher than e.g. in Germany or France. And if you combine one of those countries with neighbors, you get to a higher number than for Italy. So I am not sure Italy has to ipso facto be its own region Hobbitschuster (talk) 09:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

France has its own region, as it should. I don't think merely focusing on UNESCO world heritage sites really tells the full tale, but if Germany is such a tremendous destination for travelers, I could see actually increasing, rather than decreasing, the number of regions in Europe by adding one made up of Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Liechtenstein (the suggested "Germanic Europe"). Or the Low Countries could be put in a region with France. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Why? What's up with this weird desire for exceeding fragmentation? Central Europe is one of the better region articles under Europe precisely because it doesn't just contain one country and its satellites. iberia is so pointless partially because it is basically "Spain plus" and "Germany plus" would suffer from a similar fate. As does "Italy plus". Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Hierarchy

This article's place in the hierarchy is under debate at Talk:Europe/Hierarchy. Please provide your opinions. /Yvwv (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Date of Italian unification

An IP changed the date from 1870 (the time Rome was conquered) to 1861. What would you consider the better date? Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia gives it at 1861 (w:Italy). Personally, I think it's the better choice, and 1870 is probably too long after the w:Expedition of the Thousand. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 00:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

But can a country without its historic capital be considered truly "unified"? Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure, in the sense that it is one nation-state where before there were many states (the Holy See excepted). ARR8 (talk | contribs) 00:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The Holy See isn't a state, just like the Sovereign Order of Malta isn't. The current Vatican only came under de jure papal sovereignty under Mussolini. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Right, that's why I consider it an exception and Italy unified in 1861. One could maybe argue that Italy was never and is not unified because San Marino is independent, but, if one overlooks it, the Italian nation, if there is such a thing, minus diaspora populations, has been living under one state from 1861 onward. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 00:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

In any case, the precise year of unification is not really a crucial fact of this article. /Yvwv (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Southwestern Europe

If you consider romance-speaking European countries of catholic heritage as a coherent ensemble (I personnaly don't but let's admit), then its localisation is much more something like "western and southern Europe" then "southwestern Europe". Most of France is not southern Europe, and if you consider Germany and Switzerland to be central European, Italy is not in the west either. --Esprit intemporel (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Louvre Museum Wikimedia Commons.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Replaced ARR8 (talk | contribs) 19:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Romania

• Every now and then, this article is edited to include Romania, and I'm actually surprised to see that this item seems to have never been discussed here before. IMO this article's point is to explore from the traveller's POV the contiguous westernmost portion of Europe, that, by historical chance, today is populated by speakers of Latin-derived languages. This is a geographical, not linguistic, distinction. This is about a chunk of Europe to which Romania belongs linguistically but not geographically; thus, Romania is included in the Balkans article to which, geographically, it belongs. Ibaman (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The "normal" draft of the article does mention Romania, and the way it does so is reasonable. I agree that the article and region hierarchy should be kept as-is. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I've also understood the article is about Western Mediterranean Europe. --Ypsilon (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

What if we called the article "Southwestern Europe"? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• If I was to freely express my POV, I have always thought this article, with this name, is a slippery slope and prone to always generate polemic, just as Middle East, but even harder to properly define. The heaviest discussion ever here was whether Malta belongs or not (alas, linguistically it does not). And let's be frank: our Romanian and Moldovan readers, that pop up from time to time, have a point, a big one, of feeling offended by being excluded from an article with this name. I never found it useful as a travel piece, and never applied much attention or creative energy to it, unlike Roman Empire. Ibaman (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I sort of have a mental picture of the area this article covers (or perhaps is attempting to cover, perhaps I'm mistaken) though; southern European countries that receive a lot of visitors, ie. Italy, France and Spain. --Ypsilon (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I support SelfieCity's proposal of renaming, so the geographical sense of the article's scope is emphasized. Ibaman (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Ibaman. I never thought this was a useful term to cover. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The only thing I'd say is that northern France might not be seen as "southwestern" Europe. But then, it's not "Latin" Europe either. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Why would it be less Latin than other parts of France? Another option, if we don't like the geographical designation, is to change the regions for Europe. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

This article was created to re-organize the hierarchy of European countries (Talk:Europe/Hierarchy) and create a coherent continental section to include countries which currently don't belong to one (France, Italy, Malta etc). The name of the article is open for discussion. /Yvwv (talk) 09:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

We have some precedence to define continental sections and regions differently than a traditional or lexical definition, for practical reasons. Our region Southern United States excludes Texas and Florida. Siberia and the Russian Far East are breadcrumbed to Europe, and so on. /Yvwv (talk) 15:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I like the idea of using this article to reorganize the continental sections of Europe. The current hierarchy is awkward, with no real home for Monaco, Malta, and San Marino. But if we use the title "Latin Europe", Romania and maybe Malta will be perennial issues. I wonder if we can come up with a better name. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Monaco is an enclave in France, so it should be in whatever region France is in. Likewise for Vatican City and San Marino vis-à-vis Italy. Malta also logically belongs in the same region as Italy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. What's awkward about the current hierarchy is that none of those countries have a region. Most are breadcrumbed directly to Europe, while Vatican City is breadcrumbed to Rome (which is appropriate, IMO), and San Marino is breadcrumbed to Italy. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Why not just have "Western Europe" (former free countries including Germany) and "Eastern Europe" (former Communist bloc countries excluding East Germany) as the two regions underneath Europe? We can add regions underneath those if necessary. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Because this isn't Cold War Europe, and you're ignoring Central Europe and a country like Greece that doesn't belong in any of these regions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you even considered the idea. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

You mean because I dismissed it immediately? Remember that before the USSR, there was the Austrian Empire, which ruled over Mitteleuropa - Central Europe. It doesn't make sense to consider all former Warsaw Pact countries "Eastern Europe". Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Whatever merits it might have, it would be considered an insult by most of the countries that left the Russian influence after the fall of The Wall. I also react strongly to your using the phrase "free countries". It might have some truth in Europe, but it reminds me of the Cold War anti-communist propaganda, where a democratic country like Nicaragua was considered non-free. (No, this is not the place to discuss the correctness of that statement; enough to say it invokes strong feelings for me, and probably in many others.) --LPfi (talk) 10:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Ikan, while the Post-War (WWII) countries of Europe have changed little in the boundaries (with the exception of the Balkans), the boundaries of the Austrian Empire no longer are even close to the borders of Austria today. If you say Cold War Europe is irrelevant, the Austrian Empire must be even more so. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 10:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

You think this is about borders? Borders don't determine cultural connections. And the Austrian Empire lasted a hell of a lot longer than the USSR! How much time have you spent in Europe, to think that long periods of history have to be irrelevant because they ended in 1918? Have you been to Europe yet at all? Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

−

In historical linguistics, the w:Italo-Western languages group is made up by Portuguese, Spanish, Catalan, French, Italian and bordering minor languages, while Romanian (with the minor Romance languages of the Balkans) make up the East Romance languages. In other words, the countries in this article make up a coherent linguistic identity (except Malta, which should in any case belong to the same continental section as Italy). The challenge is to find an uncontroversial name. /Yvwv (talk) 11:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• Shall we refocus the discussion, "go back to the cold cow" as we say in Portuguese? As I said earlier, our Romanian and Moldovan readers have a point, a big one, of feeling offended by being excluded from "Latin Europe" , and will go on perpetually making such edits again. By the way, and unsaid till now, this term would also apply to the Francophone chunks of Belgium and Switzerland, forever Latin since the Roman Empire times. And I again support a name change, to a purely geographical determination, "southwestern Europe" or whatever term on which consensus is achieved. As pointed out by Yvwv, this discussion should be going on Talk:Europe. Ibaman (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's continue it there. Also, it's noteworthy that, because we base our regions on national boundaries, rightly so or not, they are highly relevant to our discussion of regions of Europe. But as Ibaman said, let's continue at Talk:Europe. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Europe/Hierarchy is the place, I believe. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Do we have any alternative name suggestion except Southwestern Europe? I would accept any name that settles the dispute. /Yvwv (talk) 08:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I really think that's the best name. I can't think of another one. But do we really want an extra-region of "Southwestern Europe"? What's the point? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The point is to include a coherent group of similar countries, of which two or more can easily be visited in the same journey, so that we don't need to breadcrumb Monaco or San Marino to Europe. /Yvwv (talk) 09:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Which means that after the name change this is intended to transform from an extra-region into a proper continental section. I don't think there is consensus on that yet. --LPfi (talk) 09:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I think this would be better as a travel topic about Latin Europe, one that actually does include Romania, "Roman" Switzerland, Wallonia et al. The fact that nobody can think of a name other than a cardinal point (hell, the fact that we have to think of a name, rather being able to use a name which already exists and is in widespread use) speaks volumes about the existence of this region. I don't say that lightly, because I know several of you continue to work very hard on this article.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Many established geographic terms are made up by cardinal points, "central" or "middle". Every section we have of Asia and Africa is currently made up of those. /Yvwv (talk) 09:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, but I believe the ones we usually use are in current use. "Western Europe", "Central Europe", "Eastern Europe", "Northern Europe" and "Southern Europe" are all terms I'm familiar with; "Southwestern Europe" is a region I've never heard of before. And to your previous point, Yvwv, if the idea is that this is a grouping of countries that you can easily visit on the same trip, what makes Spain a more coherent grouping with Italy than Slovenia, Croatia and Switzerland, which actually border on the country? And there's another issue we previously discussed: Number of travelers (under normal circumstances). A region that encompasses Italy, France and Spain will dwarf all other European regions in terms of normal number of visitors, won't it? I'm warming to ThunderingTyphoons!' idea of having a "Romance Europe" travel topic, if people think that's really useful. (I'm not positive it is; would you propose similar ones for all European areas where Germanic and Slavic languages are spoken?) Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ - I probably wouldn't, Ikan, I just don't want to see this work go to waste.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

ttcf. Other articles that people worked on have been removed from articlespace before. I'm not jumping to conclusions, but I don't really understand and have really never understood the point of this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

You can see my earlier skepticism by looking at the first thread on this page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Also look at Talk:Europe/Hierarchy#New region: Latin Europe. and Talk:Europe/Hierarchy#Regional overhaul. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

If we go the route ThunderingTyphoons suggests, making it a travel topic (or keeping it an "extra-region", with about the same scope, keeping the name and including Romania & al, I don't see it doing any harm (if links to it have proper context/oneliners), while the work is saved to be used by those wanting to read about this "region". Making it part of the hierarchy, on the other hand, has a lot of issues and has met more resistance than what is worth trying to overcome in the foreseeable future. --LPfi (talk) 11:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Could this work as a non-contiguous extraregion? I don't see why not. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess I agree that even if I don't really see the point of it, an extra-region encompassing all areas of Europe where Romance languages are spoken (and eliminating Malta from it) wouldn't do any harm. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of this article is to create a continental section for some European countries which are contiguous and culturally similar, of which many have yet to belong to a continental section. The purpose has never been to make a specific category for all Romance-speaking countries in Europe regardless of geography, or to neglect Basque and other minority languages. To make the distinction, I have made a provisional renaming of the article to Southwestern Europe. Please suggest other names. /Yvwv (talk) 11:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

That was the original purpose, for which there was no consensus. I think renaming it was a good move, to avoid frustrating the Romanians, but I still think there is little use developing it further in that direction without having at least some more support for the idea (and bringing it up soon is a waste of time, as that would be just repeating the discussion). I would have liked the other path better, but as the original intent seems to remain, so be it. --LPfi (talk) 13:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Businesspeople and English

We say that "As anywhere else, younger people, business people and those employed in the tourist industry will likely speak some English." Do all businesspeople really know "some English" better than the general population? I'd think these countries are big enough that you can run a business very well without having to deal with foreign partners or customers. So is this true or just somebody's guess? –LPfi (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Other people will need to comment about Italy and France, but my impression in Spain was the Spanish business people on my flight into Spain spoke some English. Of course, these are likely business people who travel overseas regularly, so I'm not sure about those who do not. But what is for sure is that most average locals in Spain were unable to speak English. The dog2 (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be true of scientists or any professionals on that plane, returning from a session of work over there? People travelling for business to English-speaking countries (or countries where you can do business in English) would be very much more likely to speak the language. I'd suppose those doing business just domestically or with other Romance countries are as unlikely to speak English as their mates in other trades. Its different in a small country (like Finland), where everybody with a bigger business would have contacts from abroad that don't speak their language. –LPfi (talk) 08:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The scientists would probably be able to speak some English, because they have to publish their work in English. Gone are the days when you had to be proficient in Latin, French, German and Russian to read scientific papers. Everyone publishes primary research papers in English these days, and it's usually only the review papers that get published in other languages. The dog2 (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The Moors

Yvwv removed a mention of the Islamic caliphates as "Not relevant for the definition and presentation of the region. No endemic Arabic language or Islam remains from the caliphate, and it affected only Spain and not the region at large."

I agree that the Umayyads and the Caliphate of Córdoba mostly affected Spain, and I don't think the loanwords are many enough to warrant a mention in Talk (we don't mention influences other than of Latin), but I think the Moors were influential enough to be mentioned in the History section – especially as the Islamic influence on the heritage of Europe is so often overlooked.

–LPfi (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Al-Andalus, and the interaction with the Islamic world from the 7th century to present day, certainly deserves a mention in the history section. /Yvwv (talk) 12:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

And I now see you inserted that mention before I commented here :-) –LPfi (talk) 12:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The Arabs also ruled Malta, Sicily and parts of Southern France at times. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Al-Andalus also included southern Portugal, and you can also see the legacy of Muslim rule in some parts of Portugal. The dog2 (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)