Jump to content

Talk:Mediterranean Sea/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Part of the Atlantic?

Personally I think it's kind of strange to consider the Mediterranean as part of the Atlantic. I have never heard this view before, and following the logic that it is connected to the Atlantic, one could also say that the black sea is part of the Atlantic, since it is connected to the Mediterranean (and thus to the Atlantic) via the Bosphorus and the Sea of Marmara. Secondly, I am raising this issue hear because I noticed there seems to be some inconsistency with other articles. For instance, the Wiki article on the Strait of Gibraltar mentions that "The Strait of Gibraltar is the strait that separates the Atlantic Ocean from the Mediterranean Sea. So I was just wondering which one is true. :) (RagingR2 22:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC))

of course that the Mediterranean is part of the Atlantic ocean the same that the black sea, Baltic sea, Caribbean sea ...--83.38.57.80 22:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Obsolete map

The map on this page is obsolete. It features Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Soviet Union, both of which dissolved in the early 1990s. --Romanm 19:25, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I noticed this yesterday and fixed it :) --Joy [shallot] 15:10, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mediterranean flood

Some sources say that the current Mediterranean sea was created 5-8 million years ago when the natural dam at Gibraltar was breached. See fx flood. That should be mentioned in this article. Does anyone have any good links about that subject? Thue 16:25, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Fixed - I reworded that paragraph completely with info from the book Noah's Flood. andy 17:26, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Middle earth

An anonymous contributor added the following:

Europe was probably formerly called Mediterranea (Middle Earth) before the Romans conquered it, and renamed it Europe after the goddess Europa. The Mediterranean Sea was named after the land next to it, as seas often are.

I am not aware of the basis for this, but please reinstate if you can find some support for it . -- ALoan (Talk) 22:55, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Romans did not give the name "Europe" to the continent, which was never called Mediterranea. "Europa" is a Greek toponym derived ultimately from a Semitic root word -ereb- meaning "west," among other things.--Polylerus 22:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The Mediterranean is middle of the Earth, the sea at the center of the land, as the ancient Romans knew it. M dorothy 05:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Mare Nostrum

Hi. There is no explanation in the article as to why the Romans called the Mediterranean "Mare Nostrum" (Our Sea). The name was a reference to the fact that at that point in history Rome ruled all the land bordering the sea. Obviously, the name only came into being once such a conquest was achieved (in the 2nd century A.D., if I'm not mistaken). I'm uncertain whether this should be added to this article or if the article "Mare Nostrum", which is currently a redirect to this article, should be made into a main article concerning this very specific name given to the Mediterranean. Any thoughts? Regards, Redux 16:41, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bizarre POV?

Does it strike anyone else as somewhat eccentric for an encyclopedia article to assert

The perfect little Sea that geology gave Western history is, in many ways, in great jeopardy.

...? Definitions of what perfection constitutes for a sea, and in what ways human tinkering represents jeopardy to it, seem to require reifying a Sea as an entity with inherent aesthetic or moral properties. Or is it just me? Adhib 15:45, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Someone should construct an ecology section that is more specific about our careless treatment of the sea, the comment has very little to do with geology. Geological processes will continue in one form or another no matter what we do to the Mediterranean Sea. --Csnewton 15:53, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Hebrew

The use of Hebrew letters in an English text strikes me as unconventional. I believe that words in non-English alphabets should only ever be used parenthetically. There is no way for an English speaker who doesn't read the Hebrew alphabet to read this sentence. Bathrobe

A warning about Roylee edits

Please read Roylee edits with a critical stance. Much of what he contributes to articles constitutes individual research or POV statements. I'd suggest reading his user talk page and specifically al the deletions he has made from his user talk page. Much of his work and actions draws heavy criticism from the Wiki community. --Csnewton 16:07, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

West Africa Accessed the Mediterranean Superhighway

FIRST: Read Advanced Prehistoric Ships.

SECOND: Read History of Suez Canal.

THIRD: Read History of North Africa.

Originally, much of North Africa was inhabited by black Africans, including Upper Egypt, as demonstrated by Saharan rock art throughout the region; however, this does not appear to have been the case in the Maghreb and Lower Egypt, which were inhabited by white Africans speaking Afro-Asiatic languages. Following the desiccation of the Sahara, most black Africans migrated South into East and West Africa.
Clearly, the colorful map posted at Afro-Asiatic languages shows the dwindling effect the Roman Empire had on Nile-Saharan languages.

FOURTH: The Mende peoples apparently were attracted to the Sahara Desert (ecoregion) because of climatic similarities with the Sudan. See Deserts and xeric shrublands: Palearctic ecozone, bottom of page.

History of ancient Egypt shows a possible link between ancient Egypt and the Mende-peoples.

FIFTH: Assuming Phoenicians were of a non-African race (my personal experiences have shown that many non-Africans today [especially Britons] prefer to believe this), 2500 years is insufficient to account for the huge Phoenician contribution to the Saharan gene pool. See PubMed reference posted at Sahara: History.

Why? Because the Greeks and Phoenicians both occupied the same region beginning around the same time. But there is no indication of a Greek contribution to the gene pool. Apparently, either Phoenician-Saharan intermarriage persisted over that time interval at an exceptionally higher than normal rate or the Phoenician presence in the region is far older than recorded history suggests ... or both.
In which case the consequences are that either the Phoenicians were of an African race or the Phoenicians were the West African Saharan shipbuilders credited with our earliest indications of shipbuilding ... or both.

SIXTH: Read North Africa: History. The prehistoric Moroccans and Algerians seem to have been far ahead of the rest of the world in terms of fashioning hand items such as figurines and tools.

SEVENTH: Nome (Egypt): Why are harpoons mentioned there? Harpoons were prevalent in West Africa as early as 3000 BC. See History of West Africa. So, did ancient whales venture into the Mediterranean Sea for Egyptian capture? Or was something else going on -- for example, seafaring ships between Egypt and West Africa?

Motor and Engine Technology is Older than this Timeline Indicates may be appropriate to reference here.

CONCLUSION: The Trans-Saharan trade's very existence establishes that there was interest in trading. So, why do you assume that ancient Egypt was not trading with West Africa when a careful analysis of all the above evidence indicates otherwise?

Happy Reading!!-- Roylee

Mediterranean

Currently Mediterranean redirects to this page. A lot of the pages that use the word use it in the sense of the lands surrounding the Mediterranean Sea, not the sea itself (e.g. plant and animal distributions). Seems to me it ought to be a separate page, discussing the similar biogeography, climate, etc., of the southern fringes of Europe and the north coast of Africa. Anyone care to get it going? - MPF 15:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a wonderful idea to have Mediterranean become a separate article from this one. Go for it! --Gramaic 08:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Check out Mediterranean Basin; it is a commonly used term for the Mediterranean-climate and Mediterranean-vegetation regions surrounding the sea, and I think the article I started may be what you have in mind. Tom Radulovich 20:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

There is another wiki article with almost the same title. Mediterranean sea (small letter 's') is about seas that can be classified as being 'Mediterranean', whereas this article (Mediterranean Sea) has a capital letter 'S'. I propose that the lesser used one (the one about the sea type) should be renamed, perhaps to 'Mediterranean (oceanographic term)'. It's particularly confusing in the Seas list. --Mutor 23:18, 05 Jul 2005 (UTC)

  • It appears from this discussion that there are several articles that can reasonably compete with the Sea for the "Mediterranean" label. I recommend creating a disambiguation page. Please post objections or suggestions here before 2006 28 March, when I will create the disambiguation page (or not, depending on consensus). Thanks, Kevin/Last1in 18:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Romania, Bulgaria and Portugal

I removed this sentence: "Other countries that don't border the Mediterranean, such as Portugal and parts of Bulgaria and Romania, are technically Mediterranean in their climate, fauna and flora."

Beside the fact that it is not true, it hasn't been backed up by any evidence. I'm generally not a person to go hunting for evidence, so I'm not going to ask for a reference or source, just an explanation as to why it was included. I mean, saying that BG and RO's climate are "technically Mediterranean" is going too far! Maybe they have a semi-Mediterranean climate, in the generic sense, in some parts of the country, but that doesn't mean that we can classify them as "Mediterranean climates", which they surely are not. You said "parts of BG and RO" - yes, I understand that, but even these climates aren't classified as "Mediterranean", only "semi-Mediterranean".

Here's an excerpt from [1]:

"Because of its position on the southeastern portion of the European continent, Romania has a climate that is transitional between temperate and continental. Climatic conditions are somewhat modified by the country's varied relief. The Carpathians serve as a barrier to Atlantic air masses, restricting their oceanic influences to the west and center of the country, where they make for milder winters and heavier rainfall. The mountains also block the continental influences of the vast plain to the north in the Soviet Union, which bring frosty winters and less rain to the south and southeast. In the extreme southeast, Mediterranean influences offer a milder, maritime climate. The average annual temperature is 11°C in the south and 8°C in the north. In Bucharest, the temperature ranges from -29°C in January to 29°C in July, with average temperatures of -3°C in January and 23°C in July. Rainfall, although adequate throughout the country, decreases from west to east and from mountains to plains. Some mountainous areas receive more than 1,010 millimeters of precipitation each year. Annual precipitation averages about 635 millimeters in central Transylvania, 521 millimeters at Iasi in Moldavia, and only 381 millimeters at Constanta on the Black Sea."

Thanks, Ronline 9 July 2005 10:57 (UTC) (note my message also on Template talk:Mediterranean).

I agree that Romania is a stretch. But southernmost Bulgaria and most of Portugal are Mediterranean in their climate and vegetation. Tom Radulovich 21:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Well I for one would contend that there is a substantial difference between listing Portugal as "one of the Mediterranean countries", and on the other hand terming various sections of the earth as "technically Mediterranean in their climate, fauna and flora". With this definition one should also include San Marino. I'm not certain about the "flora and fauna" part, but by any account Mediterranean climatic zones strech across sections of all continents (bar the freezing one). PS: This is my first attempt at participating in an editing talk. PPS: I am a student of Geography.

Deletion of the subracial type

That concept belongs to 19th century theories already obsolete, so I am deleting it. If someone is interested in population genetics they could read this: Human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroups HCC

Libya

I think it should be mentioned that Libya has the longest coastline of the Mediterranean nations

Names for the sea in different languages (should be removed?)

Although I personally interest myself for foreign language, I find the listings of Mediterranean Sea in all other languages inappropriate for Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. One strives in other ways to make this article globally relevant, but real context is more important than a translation in any other language. The names are unsourced and very difficult to verify. I noticed that a known vandal today added a questionable Persian term. If no-one objects, I will remove the terms for Mediterranean Sea in languages other than English. - GilliamJF 18:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Geography errors or missing?

I had to add Albania as a subdivision of Mediterranean Sea for smaller seas. Apparently someone didn't know or forgot that Albania has Adriatic Sea and Ionian Sea. Also Slovenia was missing and I added it. So much for geography!!! Did add also the Strait of Otranto which is between Albania and Italy - Illuminati 02:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent vandalism

Someone unregistered has recently been trying to add Serbia to the list of countries at he Mediterranean sea, even though it is a land-locked country; and deleting a Montenegrin language version of the sea name. Someone should take some action to stop it, because I've already reverted it three times, but the he/she is obviously very stubborn and determined to damage this page. Sideshow Bob 21:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Redirect pages and disambiguation

The current disambig link at the top of the page (Mediterranean Sea (disambiguation)) is not a good one as most people who come to this page looking for something else searched for "Mediterranean" and not "Mediterranean Sea". Mediterranean currently redirects to this article. It was previously a disambiguation page, but with so many links to it (over 2,000; many of them referring to the Sea), it was turned into a redirect, as articles should link to disambig pages only when there is confusion about a concept or it is left deliberately vague. Unless someone is willing to go through and repair the 2,000 links to the disambig page (the ideal solution), I think it is better for now to add the multiple disambig templates back to this page (I will do so shortly). Black Falcon 05:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The White Sea?

"Most languages have a name for the sea, often a translation of either "middle sea" or "white sea"." Uh... why? The article doesn't explain this, it just states it. I get that it's a common Middle Eastern name for the Mediterranean, but not why. RobertM525 05:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I heard something about that ak/kara (white/black) in Turkish had some connotation of outer/inner, which would explain why the smaller, inner sea is the Black sea and the bigger, outer sea is the White sea. According to the same person, the words beyaz/siyah (also white/black) don't have these connotations. Any Turkish speakers here who can confirm this?Mats 21:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediterranean "Basin" Map

The map that is titled "Mediterranean Basin" does not actually show the basin. In fact, a good chuck of it is off the map, since the entire Nile Basin is part of the Mediterranean Basin. Changing the title to "Mediterranean Sea" or producing a map that showed the area that drains there would be fixes to this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.57.220.63 (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Western civilization

I changed

The history of the Mediterranean is crucial to understanding the origin and development of Western civilization.

to

The history of the Mediterranean is crucial to understanding the origins and development of many modern societies.

It is common for "Westerners" to think of ancient Mediterranean history as being entirely ours but this is severely unfair. Granted the ending statement did not actually say that but it strongly implied it.

--Mcorazao 03:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean

I cut an out of place, unsourced and poorly formatted long section on the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean. Appeared to be a copy/paste from somewhere. It's in the history, if anyone wants to work it up and place properly. Vsmith 13:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Name section chopping

I chopped this para from the Name section:

Most languages have a name for the sea, often a translation of either "middle sea" or "white sea".
Currently, "The Med" is a common British English contraction for the Mediterranean Sea and its surrounding regions when employed in informal speech. "The Med" (and more often "the Eastern Med" or "the Western Med") are, almost to the exclusion of other terms, in informal usage in the US Navy.

1. Most languages have a name for anything they need to talk about. The Mediterranean is not notable in this regard. 2. The 'often'-ness of the White Sea, Middle Sea is not defined or sourced. The previous para says it in more definite language. 3. Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Adding "The Med" and other slang, jargon terms for it aren't in the scope of an encyclopedia article. ie.Are we expected to include every military informal term for it?

84.9.109.65 14:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

where is Montenegro?

on this satellite map, Montenegro is not shown while Serbia has access to sea. Is this map of Great Serbia project or ..?

No, it's an old map that displays Serbia and Montenegro as a single country, as it was for three years - — Jack (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary Photo

The photo I am referring to is the one that depicts the sea, as a point between two countries. Is that really necessary? T saston 20:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Bible reference

"Sea of the Philistines" (Exod. 22:81)

This reference can't be right. Exodus 22 has only 30 verses. Bill52270 03:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Borders of Adriatic Sea!!!

Apparently someone who doesn't know geography well or does it but has sinister intentions, deletes references to the Adriatic Sea being shared also by Albania and Croatia, also Bosnia and Herzegovina was missing. Had to add them again. LiveGo 13:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Catalan Sea and help with user Maurice27 attitude

I'm trying to introduce Catalan Sea in this article. As Catalan Sea is a term broadly used in scientific literature, I think that has to be in Wikipedia, as a place to summarize current knowledge. I'm providing +1000 references to International peer-review Journals and scientific books, trough Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.es/scholar?q=%22Catalan+Sea%22&hl=ca&lr=&btnG=Cerca).

But user Maurice27 is reverting editions (and in some other articles) because he doesn't know previously the existence of Catalan Sea. Previously, he provided references to International Organizations agreements from 50's and 60's of XX century. Fortunately, Science has advanced in the last 40 years, specially Oceanography.

So I ask help with Maurice27 attitude/vandalism related to the Catalan Sea, that I repeated is used broadly in Scientific peer-review International Journal by Scientist from several countries. Marc B.

Some International references for Catalan Sea

Although Google Scholar references are provided, In other discussion [2] user Maurice27 said:

Google scholars made by Catalan people of the Instituto de Ciencias del Mar, Paseo Nacional, 08039, Barcelona, Spain???? Are you kidding us? What kind of proof for the international use is that?

Let me show a few international source as a contrast of this incredible claim.

--

http://doga.ogs.trieste.it/WP4/real_time_west.html

Mediterranean Forecasting System. Funded by European Commission V Framework Program Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development

--

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0079661199000300

Benthic response to particulate fluxes in different trophic environments: a comparison between the Gulf of Lions–Catalan Sea (western-Mediterranean) and the Cretan Sea (eastern-Mediterranean)

R. DanovaroCorresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, a, e, A. Dinetb, G. Duineveldc and A. Tselepidesd a Institute of Marine Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Ancona, Via Brecce Bianche, 60131 Ancona, Italy b Observatoire Océanologique de Banyuls, Laboratoire d'Océanographie Biologique (CNRS), B.P. 44, 66651 Banyuls-sur-Mer, France c Netherlands Institute for Sea Research (NIOZ), P.O. Box 59, 1790 AB Den Burg-Texel, The Netherlands d Institute of Marine Biology of Crete, PO Box 2214 Iraklio, Crete, Greece e Department of Zoology, University of Bari, Via Orabona 4, 70125, Bari, Italy

--

http://plankt.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/6/589

Feeding selectivities and food niche separation of Acartia clausi, Penilia avirostris (Crustacea) and Doliolum denticulatum (Thaliacea) in Blanes Bay (Catalan Sea, NW Mediterranean) Alexis Katechakis*, Herwig Stibor, Ulrich Sommer1 and Thomas Hansen1

Department Biologie II, Ludwigs-Maximilians-Universität, Abteilung Aquatische Ökologie, Karlstraße 23–25, 80333 München, Germany and 1 Institut für Meereskunde, Christian-Albrechts-Universität, Abteilung Experimentelle Ökologie, Düsternbrooker WEG 20, 24105 Kiel, Germany


--

http://www.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=ENV&recid=596571

Notes on the feeding habits of Epigonus denticulatus (Pisces, Apogonidae) in the Catalan Sea (western Mediterranean).

Matallanas, J Vie et milieu. Paris. Vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 77-81. 1982.

An so on... Obviosly most of the references come from Research Institutes around the Catalan Sea because always Marine Research Institutes do their research activity more easily (funding question) in seas near its location.

Marc B.


I already said that you may be very well the Pope of Rome and you may have studied for decades marine geology. WE DON'T CARE! This is the ENGLISH wikipedia and so, YOU MUST use english names. (BTW, same could go for names such as Girona, Lleida... In no way used in english)

Due to your studies, you may very well know The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of UNESCO, right? Ok, let's talk about them:

  • "1.The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission established by resolution 2.31 adopted by the General Conference of Unesco at its eleventh session, and in conformity with the recommenda tion of the Intergovernmental Conference on Oceanic Research (Copenhagen 11- 16 July 1960) met for its first session in Paris at Unesco Headquarters from 19 to 27 October 1961" [3]
  • "2.By the end of the session, a total of 40 States had become members of the Commission. These are: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Cuba, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Finland, Federal Republic of Germany, France, Ghana, India, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Mauritania, Monaco, Morocco, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Rumania, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Tunisia, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Republic, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uruguay, Viet-Nam. [4]
  • 3.Representatives and observers of the following intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations also attended the session: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), World Meteorological Organization (WMO), World Health Organization (WHO), Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO), International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU), International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG), International Association of Physical Oceanography (IAPO), International Union of Biological Sciences (IUBS), Special Committee on Oceanic Research (SCOR), Permanent Association of Navigational Congresses. International Hydrographic Bureau (IHB), International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission." [5]

You may find its statutes here and its Rules of Procedures here.

Notice that the biggest Unions, Comittees, Asociations, Bureaux and Coucils related to Geodesy, Meteorology, Oceanography are present in this commision and that Spain (the country in which this Sea is "located" (international waters included) and that USA and UK (the most relevant english speaking countries in the world) are also members.

This said, this gentlemen decided that this sea in question, was to be named in ENGLISH Balearic Sea (Balear Sea, Iberian Sea)[6] with the following codes:

  • 28 (c) using IHO 23-3rd: Limits of Oceans and Seas, Special Publication 23, 3rd Edition 1953, published by the International Hydrographic Organization. [A preliminary revision of SP 23, dated 1986, is widely cited on Internet websites.
  • B9 using ACIC M 49-1: Chart of Limits of Seas and Oceans, revised January 1958, published by the Aeronautical Chart and Information Center (ACIC), United States Air Force; note - ACIC is now part of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA).
  • 8J using DIAM 65-18: Geopolitical Data Elements and Related Features, Data Standard No. 4, Defense Intelligence Agency Manual 65-18, December 1994, published by the Defense Intelligence Agency.

So, my dear annon user, let us IGNORE your original research of marine geology, even if working in "the (probably) biggest marine research institute in the Mediterranean Sea, in Barcelona". let us IGNORE your "lot of scientific literature about the Catalan Sea" and let us IGNORE your "several Ph.D. Thesis". Again, even if you are the Pope of Rome, here in wikipedia, we love references, we love facts and above all, we love the truth.

And the truth is, that in english, that sea is called Balearic Sea. PERIOD! --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 22:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You said that you "ask(ed) some scientist few meters from (You are) writing now about Catalan Sea before writting in Catalan Wikipedia"... That's fantastic... See, right here, next to me, God himself and Mahatma Gandhi (which is next room) are saying that that is not an acceptable reference. the "Someone who knows told me" doesn't work here in wikipedia.

You keep using as references google scholars and other institutes which are:

  • in spanish language
  • in catalan language
  • made by catalan people


So I decided to took some time to search...

A search at Google:

A Search at Google Scholars:

  • "Catalan Sea" 1,030 results (note than the majority is made by catalan people)
  • "Balearic Sea 724 results (note that names are more "international"

A search at Google Books:

Neither Encarta nor britannica show any result.


Now, let me guide you to WP:NAME guidelines:

  • "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity"

And, let me guide you to WP:NCGNguidelines:

  • The following convention on geographic names represents what Wikipedia actually does, and reflects lengthy discussion on the talk page. Our naming policy provides that article names should be chosen for the general reader, not for specialists. By following English usage, we also avoid arguments about what a place ought to be called, instead asking the less contentious question, what it is called. If English usually calls a place by a given name, use it.
  • This is the English Wikipedia; its purpose is to communicate with English-speaking readers. English does not have an Academy; English usage is determined by the consensus of its users, not by any government.
  • In general, however, we should avoid using names unrecognizable to literate anglophones where a widely accepted alternative exists.
  • Please remember that Google Scholar and Google Books are largely random selections out of the whole corpus of English writing. If the results could easily have arisen by chance (for example, if there are only half-a-dozen or so valid hits on all the alternatives combined), this is not a good indicator of widespread English usage.
  • There are cases in which the local authority recognizes equally two or more names from different languages, but English discussion of the place is so limited that none of the above tests indicate which of them is widely used in English; so there is no single local name, and English usage is hard to determine. So, Where the above tests, therefore, give no indication of a widely used English name, those articles are placed according to the language of the linguistic majority


And how does the "linguistic majority" reach a consensus? Pacta sunt servanda ("pacts must be respected"). International treaties under the International Law are there to guide us all, my dear Marc B. Not just "per què te es passis pel forro dels collons" (to ignore them). If they are signed, you, as an individual, must RESPECT THEM.

And the most known supranational organization, the UN, did a treaty on the sea naming matter. Let us please ignore if you believe that a "reference from 50's and 60's" is not ok to you. As far as I'm concerned, a law or a treaty does not have a date of lapsing. If the treaty is effective to this date, you must accept it, because it is an International agreement.


And what does Wikipedia says to do in case of Naming Conflict Wikipedia:Naming conflict ?:

  • International organisations. Search for the conflicting names on the websites of organisations such as the United Nations, NATO, OSCE, IMF, etc.

So, my reference here above is far more respectable than your "google scholars" which can/may fail reach NPOV (if only in the naming). An International Agreement will NEVER.


United Nations view on the importance of Hydrography.[7] (Location: Home > Background)

On 23 December 2003 (that's not from the 50's and 60's anymore, right?), the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution A/RES/58/240 on Oceans and Law of the Sea that dealt, in large part, with safety of navigation. In this resolution, the General Assembly:

  • Welcomes the work of the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) and its 14 Regional Hydrographic Commissions and encourages increased membership of the IHO by States, noting that organization’s capacity to provide technical assistance, facilitate training and identify potential funding sources for development or improvement of hydrographic services; and calls upon States and agencies to support the IHO trust fund and examine the possibility of partnerships with the private sector;
  • Invites IHO and the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to continue efforts and to jointly adopt measures with a view to encouraging greater international cooperation and coordination for the transition to electronic nautical charts; and to increase the coverage of hydrographic information on a global basis, especially in areas of international navigation and ports and where there are vulnerable or protected marine areas;

The International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) (which you fail to accept, even if the International community does), and which is encouraged by the U.N, does have a publication section inside their site [8] (go to Home > Publications > IHO Download Section), and how funny, it has charts in it (Special Publications > Limits of Oceans and Seas (1953). Sheet maps 1, 2 and 3). Click on "Sheet 2" [9]. Again, you will see that it clearly states Balearic (Iberian) Sea. Even more, "your" subdivision of this sea as "Catalan Sea" is not even accepted nor mentioned.


Now, untill you recover your breath, quit bulls**ting me with "Catalan issue being a problem to Maurice". Each day, I have 3-4 little boys as you for breakfast. If you fulfill your mouth with words such as "respect", "being humble", "read carefully references", "follow guidelines", "knowing a little about you are talking about", you must be prepared to bite the dust when playing with the big boys.

Wanted references? You better start chewing slowly. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 22:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

A I said before, Maurice, if you want to use these offensive words, please give me your real complete name, your academical background and where are you living and working (I did with me. You can contact me). We can discuss it in person. If not, please, as you know, discussion pages are for talking about articles.
I have to repeat that Catalan Sea and Balearic Sea are different Seas? You have the same (biased) problem as in Sicily-Sardinia. Your references don't mention several seas current in the Mediterranean Sea Wikipedia article. Please, can you apply same criteria and erase them from it?. Later you can create a new section with these seas. I repeated that Maurice27 vandal attitude is intellectually dishonest due to ideological prejudices (he is a well know activist against Catalan stuff that not follows its particular point of view), breaking the neutral point of view rule. Marc B.

Summarizing Catalan Sea/Maurice27 user issue

Let me summarize that issue realted to Maurice27 issue:


  • Maurice27: He modified a map [10] where consciosly situated Sicily in Sardinia Island.

Current (and ancient) knowledge: Sicily Island is located between Italian Peninsula and Africa.


  • Maurice27: He states that Balearic Sea and Catalan Sea are the same one.

Current knowledge: It shows that are different seas. Catalan Sea is inside Balearic one. References has been provided. Please, sea discussion above.


  • Maurice27: He states that Catalan Sea is the Catalan word for Balearic Sea.

Current knowledge: References for Catalan Sea (English) and Mar Catalán (Spanish) are given.


  • Maurice27: He states that Catalan Sea is not a common word in English language.

Current knowledge: According to this criteria, an important number of Wikipedia articles has to be erased.


  • Maurice27: He states that Catalan Sea has not international use.

Current knowledge: References of Catalan Sea used in International Peer-Review Journals (and books) are provided, from Academical Institutions of Spain, Italy, Netherlands, France, Germany...


  • Maurice27: Maurice27 assertations are based mainly in one reference (see discussion above).
    • It's dated from 50's and 60's of XX century.
    • Reference includes Spain, among other states.
    • Reference includes International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), among other institutions.

Current knowledge: Hundreds or modern reference has been provided

    • They are modern references, based in Google Scholar, the search engine for academical texts. Science and specially Oceanography had have key advances in the last 50 years.
    • Spain, where Catalan Sea is located and they are territorial waters, is using [11] the name Catalan Sea (mar Catalán) in official documentation by the Spanish Oceanographic Institute, Ministry of Science and Education.
    • IAEA (Monaco)are using Catalan Sea in peer-review journals (for example [12])


  • Maurice27: He states that Catalan Sea is not recogniced by IHO treathies (50's, 60's) [13].

Current knowledge: According to this particular criteria, currently seas in the Mediterranean Sea Wikipedia article has to be erased: Libyan Sea, Sea of Sicily, , Sea of Sardinia, Thracian Sea, Myrtoan Sea, Sea of Crete, the Cilician Sea. They are not in the IHO reference.


  • Maurice27: He states that references in google scholars and other institutes are in spanish language, in catalan language, (or) made by catalan people

Current knowledge: References in english language from nationals of France, Germany, Italy, Monaco, Ireland... are provided.


  • Maurice27: He states that Catalan Sea is not recognice by International Community.

Current knowledge: References for International Community are provided (Google Scholar).


Conclusions

I think conclusions are clear about Maurice27 attitude. In the other hand, Catalan Sea is in use in the last (at least) 50 years, international refences in several languages are provided, and as Wikipedia has to cover the knowledge, I think there is no problem about including Catalan Sea, although Maurice27 disaproval. I can't imagine more quality wikipedia criteria I have to use.

Marc B.


"Catalan Sea" lacks of any single "juridical authority", "law (i.e. de jure) that stipulates that official name" as it is exiged in order to accept a proposal. Being this a matter of using an internationally accepted name in International treaties under the International Law (known and used by every country in the world without misleadings), the options are clear.

  • The "Catalan Sea" name has not been accepted by the international community nor appears in any International treaty (please refer to above's explanation). In only appears in some scholars or books, but again, it lacks of International jurisdiction and/or approval.
  • The "Balearic Sea" does have the approval, full description, resolution in the Law of the Sea, and is perfectly delimited by the IHO in order to appear in sea charts worldwide

The UN, as such, has no jurisdiction, but the International treaties under the International Law signed between its members absolutly do. Therefore, the edition of "Limits of Oceans and Seas" by IHO (as an International organization), has FULL jurisdiction to give an "official denomination" (supposedly, as I'm not certain, with the majority of the votes of its members) with legal recognition.

May I use this example from October 2007, in which the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan requests a revision of the name "Japan Sea" Vs "Sea of Japan". Let me point you at section 5:

  • "The IHO is currently asking its member states for their opinions concerning the Japanese counterproposal while pointing out that there is no agreement on the Chairman's suggestion among member states concerned. It is the sincere hope of Japan that the Japanese counterproposal will gain the understanding and support of the international community, so that the revision of the "Limits of Oceans and Seas" can be realized at an early date."

So, you can imagine that, if a fully executive power such as the government of Japan adresses this organization, it is because the International Community did once give it full jurisdiction to manage these matters. And the agreement's signatures by the member states/organizations did give it therefore regulatory powers regarding (among many other things) sea toponymy.

And, "Catalan Sea" is not (yet) recognised by the IHO (therefore, no international recognition), as any member has (yet) presented its proposal to include it.

Marc, you may revert as many times as you wish. ALL those sea names are either unreferenced in their respective articles and/or are just mentioned in Antiquity by people such Horace (see Myrtoan Sea).... talking about OLD references... Mines at least are from XX century...

Whos is the one here who gave full referenced sources? I am

Following your criteria, you are asking to include unreferenced data in wikipedia, not only applying names wich are not recognised by the international community, but also you keep of insulting me with senteces like "beein intellectually dishonest, due to an ideollogical prejudice, as he is a well-know by the community activist against Catalan stuff", being this a personal attack and xenophobic discrimination. You are prejudging my edits negliging the references.

Due to your condition of annon user, I cannot report you to administrators, but your way of editing is clearly demonstrated.

You want to continue reverting? fine, as you don't admit being wrong, I will also continue. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 11:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

2008 submarine cable disruption

I was thinking there should be some reference to the 2008 submarine cable disruption incident, or at least a See also link, but I'm not really sure where it should be worked in... -- MacAddct  1984 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The Mediterranean will dry out?

Why is there not anything about this? it will and it has so you should add it.

92.12.171.222 (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The Mediterranean may or may not dry out; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Read the policy at WP:CRYSTAL. - — Jack (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Temperatures??

I came here to get an idea of what kind of surface temperatures one could expect around Malta in January, but it seems there's no info at all. I'd really appreciate it if someone took the time to dig up some data on temperatures and whatnot and included it in the article. Cheers! 95.209.115.38 (talk) 03:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

See Malta (temperatures). —Stephen (talk) 03:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Mediterranean Sea Changes

About six million years ago, the Mediterranean Sea was cut off from the Atlantic Ocean by rising mountains. One thousand years later, the water had all evaporated - leaving a dry sea-bed covered in salt. About a million years later, the sea level rose in the Atlantic until it began to pour over the mountains - creating the greatest waterfall in Earth's history. Even so, it took about 100 years to fill up completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.6.181.189 (talk) 13:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

see Zanclean flood article... Böri (talk) 13:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Name

I read recently (not on the net) that the Romans first use of the term Mediterranean (i.e. Mediterraneus) was for a province and not the sea. It made sense when I read it since other terms like Mare Nostrum existed for that. Hmmm, now where did I read that... Brando130 (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought the name meant that it was at the centre of the known world rather than it was surrounded by land. The Romans wouldn't have thought that a sea surrounded by land was in any way exceptional. TheOneOnTheLeft (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Global Warming?

"Global warming could trigger hurricanes over the Mediterranean Sea." This seems out of place. Like it was added as a complete afterthought. Thoughts on what might happen to the Med in the future are many and varied. Why add this? Is such meaningless conjecture desirable?Traumatic (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I dont see that anywhere in this article. Care to point it out? Thanks! Brusegadi (talk) 07:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
That line was deleted in an edit on 29 June 2008. Check an old version of the article to see it. - Shaheenjim (talk) 03:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The Black Sea

The article does not include the Black Sea as part of the Mediterranean. As I recall my geography lessons, it is a part of it just as the Adriatic. The article does not explain why it does not include the Black Sea, either.--Mátyás (talk) 08:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Black Sea is not considered as a part of Mediterranean sea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.244.223 (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Depth?

At the 2nd paragraph of the article it is stated that "The maximum depth is 20,916 feet (6,375 m) and average depth is 9,898 feet (3,017 m)." (which seems to be wrong). Under "Geology" below, it is stated that "The Mediterranean Sea has an average depth of 1,500 metres (4,920 ft) and the deepest recorded point is 5,267 meters (about 3.27 miles) in the Calypso Deep in the Ionian Sea" (which seems to be more accurate according to other sources). Could someone with access to original oceanographic data confirm the above and edit the article please? GPapangeles (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)The Mediterranean Sea has an average depth of 1,500 metres (4,920 ft) and the deepest recorded point is 5,267 meters--Ελλάς Περικλής (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Width

'Max' should be 'Min' ?! 212.183.140.55 (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it altogether. Bazonka (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Outdated maps

Both geopolitical maps in the article are outdated: Montenegro is missing. I tried to find some images on Commons, but no such luck.Mátyás (talk) 09:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

When is a place a major city?

I guess everyone can agree that Alexandria is a major city but should a place like Valetta, with its 6,300 inhabitants, also be included? It is of course the capital of Malta and it does have historic significance. Should then also Gibraltar, with its history and well-known name, be included even though it has only 29,000 inhabitants? Both these towns regularly crop up in the edits and are just as regularly deleted without there being any criteria. It would seem that there is a kind of tentative consensus that only larger cities should be included in this list of, lets say, over 200,000 inhabitants ([Messina]] with its 244,000 has been up there for ages already). Should it perhaps be 300,000? Should historical importance be weighed also? Should all capital cities be included? What do you think should be the criterion to be included in this list?Takeaway (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Valletta is a city, not a town. Please remember this in future. ja fiswa imċappas bil-hara! (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I only meant to call it a town as Valetta is (certainly) not very large. The definition of what is a city and what is a town varies widely across the world. See for more information on this subject City#The difference between towns and cities.Takeaway (talk) 08:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Importance couldn't be defined only on the basis of the population, history should play some part in the determining of what cities should be on the list.
At least one city from the each country in the Mediterranean should be listed, be it of historical importance or a major sea port.
If there exist more major sea ports we should include them based on population, notability and special historical reasons. Trieste was not on the list before and it was a major sea port of the Austrian part of Austro-Hungarian Empire. Rijeka is not on the list (and should be) because it is a major sea port and has historical significance being the major sea port of the Hungarian part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
To conclude, we should include at least one per country if Monaco and Valetta are included.
Imbris (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The list of major cities now include cities with populations larger than 200,000 and capital cities of sovereign countries. It would be preferable to keep it that way to prevent the list from growing too big. As for using the criterion "notable": too many cities are notable along the Mediterranean due to its long and turbulent history. It would also open the door to edit wars as to which city should or should not be included in the list. I opt for keeping the present criteria for the cities in this list. Perhaps one could start a separate page called List of notable cities on the Mediterranean. A link to that page would of course then be included in to the article. Takeaway (talk) 05:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Black Sea as part of the Mediterranean--Ἡρακλῆς (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ljubljana shouldn't be listed, it not Mediterranean one bit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.75.70 (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Ljubljana has now been removed from the list. - Takeaway (talk) 22:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Roman use

Romans first use of the term Mediterranean (i.e. Mediterraneus) was for a province and not the sea--82.208.202.237 (talk) 11:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Etymology

Yahoo! Answers is given as a source for the assertion that the name means "middle of the earth". The Yahoo! writer actually goes on to say "To the ancient Romans, the Mediterranean was the centre of the Earth." Putting aside the questionable nature of Yahoo! Answers as a reliable source and putting aside too the unlikeliness that Romans would have called something so huge the centre of the anything (they didn't) it is undeniably true that the Romans didn't call the sea the Mediterranean at all. They preferred "Mare Nostrum". Mediterranean wasn't established until the fifteenth century, long after the Roman Empire had fallen. The word "mediterranean" (without a capital letter) is an English word. As the OED makes clear, it means inland, interior or midland. Most of the time we think of the world as lots of continents surrounded by oceans. The Mediterranean is unusual in being a vast sea surrounded by highly populated lands. Nothing to do with ideas about this being the centre of the earth, which is basically folk etymology. --81.108.131.234 (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

editsemiprotected

Subject: Mediterranean Sea.

The Section "Tectonic Evolution", paragraph two reads in part "in which water poured in from the Atlantic Ocean and through the Strait of Gibraltar, at a rate three times the current flow of the Amazon River.[11]"

Three times the current flow is incorrect. Should read "at a rate three orders of magnitude (1000 times)large than the flow of the present Amazon River"

See "Nature" magazine, Vol. 462|10 December 2009, Letters, "Catastrophic flood of the Mediterranean after the Messinian salinity crisis", D. Garcia-Castellanos, et al.

Jgjavadi (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The image

I have changed the image, the previous one showed Golan as part of Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar

Gibraltar and hence the United Kingdom should be added to the list of bordering countries. Technically, there is no reason for it to be left out 86.185.147.54 (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It's already there, in the territories section. Bazonka (talk) 06:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Mercury pollution

The article claims that 60,000 tons of mercury are discharged yearly in the Mediterranean. How can that be when the worl yearly production does not exceed 1,500 - 1,800 tons? (Ref: www.chem.unep.ch/mercury/report/Final%20report/chapter7.pdf) Isn't the more realistic figure rather 60 tons? 194.98.239.11 (talk) 05:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.98.239.11 (talk) 10:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Tourism Subject

Talking about how ironic it is that tourism is destroying the natural beauty of the Mediterranean Sea is not a neutral point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.173.157 (talk) 07:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Borders

Is there a reason the eastern border includes the shores of "palestine"? I believe the country who's shores are located at the eastern end of this sea is named Israel, a non disputable fact and legally recognized entity and name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.167.156 (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That is the definition of the International Hydrographic Organization, which dates back to 1953. I'm not quite sure why they didn't refer to Israel because it existed then, although it was fairly new. Perhaps they were referring to Palestine as a region, rather than as a political entity. Bazonka (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 78.3.75.70, 29 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Ljubljana should be removed from the list of major cities, it is the only city not on the sea coast at all. I don't think a continental city should be listed in Mediterranean sea.

Capital cities of sovereign countries and major cities with populations larger than 200,000 people bordering the Mediterranean Sea are: Ljubljana should be removed from here

78.3.75.70 (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Quite right; it's been removed. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  22:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

removed-NOT A FORUM!

The Mediterranean

http://the-mediterranean-region-and-all-its-beatuy.com/ A site that looks into the Mediterranean region, all you can do and find there. It has lots of information about the topic at hand. 93.136.33.249 (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The Mediterranean Sea disappeared!

millions of years ago, (but when?) Do you know a good source about that? Böri (talk) 12:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

No. But note that it is very easy for anyone at all to make baseless, fantastic claims about what supposed 'events' may or may not have happened "millions of years ago." Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
see Zanclean flood article... this was 5.33 million years ago. (but this happened again and again!) Böri (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - What I saw at that article is somebody's theory and speculation being presented as fact, then being originally synthesized by wikipedians with the writings of Pliny, in violation of WP:SYNT. As if Pliny could have any possible bearing whatsoever on some "event" that allegedly happened 5.33 million years ago. I have edited and tagged it accordingly, since it needs to be attributed as someone's theorizing and hypothesis, rather than sound so certain and confident like these are indisputably known or documented historical events from 5.33 million years ago--- but it might even be a case for WP:FRINGE. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not writing for you... The Mediterranean Sea disappeared and re-appeared again 5.33 million years ago. Böri (talk) 10:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Levantine Sea

If it really exists as part of the Mediterranean, (how) should it be mentioned in this article? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done

The mediterranean is not just a sea

The Term "Mediterranean" refers not only to oceanographical points; but most of the time to a whole geographical, climatic, historical, cultural, or geopolitical entity. Those different aspects cover each one a differente definition, including different areas, but always having a signification. There are some of these aspects that have articles, but they seem to much dispached. Probably it would be a good idea that this article covers all of these aspects, making a complete article about the mediterranean: 1- The sea itself (as it is treated in this article) 2- Geographical aspects of sourrounding areas: the mediterranean basin 3- Climatic definition; the areas of mediterranean climate that surround the med sea 4- History of the mediterranean region (anciant civilisations, islamic spread, crusades, colonisation, modern times) 5- Geopolitical aspects: international relations; mediterranean union —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.59.166 (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but this is the article for the sea. Other articles exist for Mediterranean Basin, Mediterranean climate, Mediterranean culture, Mediterranean cuisine, Mediterranean Union, etc. I don't really understand what point you're trying to make. Bazonka (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The point is that all these articles have been made each on on its side, without coordination, dipached to each, making it difficult to understand the link and to find. All these articles ARE the mediterranean and should be in my opinion found in one article (simply called "mediterranean" that would explain all the meanings of 'mediterranean' (oceanography, geopolitic, histocical, cultural, etc.) and then redirect to the full articles that would bescribe each one one specific aspect of the mediterranean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.59.166 (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

See the text right at the very top of the article with a link to Mediterranean (disambiguation)? That's your answer I think. The single word Mediterranean redirects to Mediterranean Sea as it is by far the commonest meaning. Bazonka (talk) 08:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I think that the expression "Mediterranean sea" refers to the sea in its own. If you want to extend the notion, it would be better to talk about "Mediterranean basin" or countries...--83.196.184.46 (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Lepanto

The caption of the picture in the History section describes the Battle of Lepanto as a Spanish victory, which isn't correct (the Spaniards weren't alone - nor did they provide most of the fleet, which was provided by Venice instead). It should be edited and called a victory of the Holy League. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.15.13.254 (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Bazonka (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Montenegro is missing on sattelite map

The state of Montenegro is missing on map, it is together with Serbia. To remind you, Montenegro gained back independence on 21st May 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.53.190.164 (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Relevant

In the section where the article talks about countries bordering the Mediterranean, it lists a couple of countries (for ex. Macedonia and Serbia) as "considered Mediterranean", and justifies this claim by quoting the 2009 Mediterranean Games site. My objections are two: firstly, Macedonia does not appear in that website. Secondly, does being part of the European Broadcasting Union make Israel or Morocco a "European" country? Why should membership in the Med. Games make a country "Mediterranean"? --Philly boy92 (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree. I've removed that entire paragraph - it was all too tenuous. Bazonka (talk) 11:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Removing Palestine from the infobox

Gaza strip, which border with the Mediterranean sea is defined by the UN as disputed area.--Gilisa (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Everyone may have their own definition, but I believe Wikipedia's is "State with partial recognition" Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The 'Palestinian Territory' of the 'Gaza Strip' is not a disputed area and is bordering the Med. I cant see a single reason why it should be removed from the infobox. --Sal73x (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
So call it "basin countries and territories" if that makes it any better. It isn't as if water from the Gaza doesn't flow to the Mediterranean due to it not being an "official" country. - Takeaway (talk) 03:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Major cities (municipalities) with populations larger than 200,000 people bordering the Mediterranean Sea are

Since Almería and Castellón Metropolitan Areas (see es:Área metropolitana de Almería and es:Área metropolitana de Castellón) are excluded from the list, I think the fairest thing to do is not to add "metropolitan areas" and delete all core cities (municipalities) with less than 200,000 (i.e. Almería, Piraeus and Taranto have all three around 190,000 inhabitans, Castellón de la Plana and Nador 180,000, etc.) 83.46.22.169 (talk) 08:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Oludeniz03.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Oludeniz03.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Ancient Macedonia in the article introduction

This has been altered by various users in recent days, and although I agree that 'ancient Macedonians' has no place in the introductory paragraphs simply it is in itself ambiguous (although most sources agree that they were in fact a Greek people), I think it is best to start a discussion here and avoid edit warring. My objection to including "Macedonians" as a separate ethnic group is firstly because Macedonians were not a different cultural group than that of Greece (although they were a different state, much like Thessaly and Epirus were independent Greek states) and secondly because this is not supported by the article on ancient Macedonians. --Philly boy92 (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't see a problem with the 'ancient Macedonians' being mentioned in the list. The whole paragraph talks about population and civilizations that overlap in time and geographicly. What difference is there between:
Who can answer to the above can also understand why 'ancient Macedonians' can be listed among the rest of the cultures mentioned in the article.--Sal73x (talk) 00:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I am afraid that if we are gonna have the "Ancient Macedonians" listed as a separate culture, the same has to be done with Spartan, Minoan and Mycenaean cultures. We cant have both "Ancient Macedonian" and "Greek" cultures at same time. Or both "Minoan" and "Greek" cultures. I am surprised there are 2 Greek cultures separated as two completely different and independent culture groups. The Mediterranean Sea article comes in complete contrast with the Pella article and the Ancient Macedonians article itself. --SilentResident (talk) 19:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I understand your concerns SilentResident but we can't compare Athens, Sparta or the Minoan to what was the Macedonian Empire and the conquest of Alexander the Great. It is true that the heart of Macedonia lies in Greece but the Empire was something much bigger that the small regional reality.
  • I also find quite odd that on the list are mentioned population like Jews and Gauls that have hardly sailed the Med when no body remembers to mention the Maritime republics. Where are the Genoans? and the Venetians? We could carry on for hours and it would be a good idea to have some criteria to how and who to insert in this list.--Sal73x (talk) 04:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Your argument fails even more when you bring in the Macedonian Empire. If anything, the Macedonian Empire was even more Greek than Macedon prior to Philip II. SilentRider is correct, Macedon was and is considered to be under the Greek cultural influence; 'Greece' was not a country in ancient times, it was a civilization. Aristotle defines 'Greek' as 'not one born in Greece but one who adopts the ways of the Greeks'. I agree with SilentResident, if you want to include Macedon as a separate entity, then you should also include every single Greek political entity of ancient times (Athens [you are forgeting that Athens had her own Empire], Thebes, Megara, the Mycenean culture, the Minoan Kingdom, as well as the ancient Greek kingdoms of Epirus and Thessaly. Not to mention the Greek colonies of Greater Greece and Asia Minor and other colonies on the black sea and Egypt, Spain and France. Also, the Hellenistic kingdoms.) All of these were obviously "Greek", so the question is why does Macedon deserve to be on its own? --Philly boy92 (talk) 11:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Sal73x, I am afraid there is no logic in your argument when you are talking about culture but you are using as example the whole empire that conquered the half -known to the ancients- world. And it is just pointless to note that Macedonia wasn't always an empire but a small kingdom for most of the time. Therefore it is not safe to use the empire to define the culture of the small kingdom itself. And unless you are saying that the Macedonian Empire suddenly abandoned its roots and adopted a foreign culture (!), the Macedonian Empire everybody knows, just had its own culture and knowledge coming from its homeland to influence the lands it conquered, while at same time it showed a respect to the local cultures found in those regions it conquered (see Babylon for example). Much like as with the Roman Empire, the Macedonian Empire didn't adopted any different cultures, such as the Persian or Indian, as their own culture. It respected the local cultures and architectures, while at same time, it allowed its own culture to spread and influence the Middle Eastern world for the decades to come. But this article is not the right article for further discussing about the Macedonian culture, besides of why it may or may not be listed as seperate from the other cultures. I think the Macedon talk page is better suited for this. And about the Genoan and Venetian cultures, I think the best is to add an Italian culture next to the Roman culture in the list. The Italian will cover the time period from the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the Renaissance and up to the modern times. Using this logic, the same has to be done with the Byzantine culture as well, which is missing from the list. The Byzantine culture covers the time period from the Eastern Roman Empire up to the Ottoman Empire. --SilentResident (talk) 11:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
That list is ridiculous and totally over the top for an intro. Remember WP:UNDUE. I've cut the Gordian Knot (heh) and got rid of what has essentially devolved into a gratuitous compilation of patriotic IP editors' favourite cultures, serving no real purpose and fuelling nothing but pointless, petty debates and nationalistic sentiments. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Neither cohesive nor logical organization

Ok, so I figured I would find out some information about the weather in the Med. Not so in this article. Neither the word "weather" or "storm" appears once. The section on "climate" doesn't even link to the catch-all phrase Mediterranean climate because that term was mentioned, oddly, in the section on geography further up. How can an article about a famed ocean and a region never mention keywords like:

  • tropical
  • weather
  • climate
  • rain
  • storms

whereas there are large sections about its history and how it got its name which are hardly things of general interest. And incidentally, the Mediterranean climate article is awash with everything but the Med's climate, rather it is a loanword for a climate zone found worldwide.

After a lengthy search, I finally stumbled upon Mediterranean tropical cyclone, which covers some weather events in the Med. I like to saw logs! (talk) 07:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The coastal countries

This section is, at present, written clumsily, bordering ridicule. No need to specify "continents" for countries, ridiculously creating two Turkeys, to give the simplest example. (Thus in WP we have two Turkeys, one is called "East Thrace" and the other "Anatolia"!) On the other hand, the Spanish cities of Ceuta and Melilla, in Africa, have been clumsily called "Spanish enclaves" (?). They are neither enclaves nor exclaves, because they have coasts, they are Spanish territories in Africa. (To be an enclave or exclave they should be surrounded by the territories of another country, like the Spanish exclave of Llivia "within" France. BTW TRNC is not a "territory", it is a sovereign state which has limited recognition. I am going to remove the clumsy "continental separation" from the coastal countries part. --E4024 (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

TRNC is far from being a sovereign state. It is recognized by 1/193 recognized countries(by 0.52% of the countries). By being recognized by 1 country which is the country it depends on I find it funny considering it a sovereign state. It is indeed a territory. I agree with E4024 for the case with the 2 Turkeys issue112.133.201.70 (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
We need to maintain WP:NPOV. Whilst the vast majority of countries do not recognise TRNC as independent, this is not the only view. We should state that it is a country with a note stating this this is disputed. Bazonka (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Its not the vast majority but the whole world. Stating that it is an island country is far from reality. There are no sources for that. Why is it not a NPOV to go with what 192 countries state and state that there is one country that says the opposite? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.133.201.70 (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Turkey is part of the "whole world". We must relect their view, even if it is only a small minority, and even if it conflicts with your own beliefs. Read WP:NPOV. Bazonka (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm being wrong but I think your biased. The dominant view presented will be a single country's view? Does that make sense to you? TRNC was originally listed(before today) as a disputed territory and now you changed it to be an island nation. Well done. Now TRNC is an island nation despite the UN resolutions which declare it as illegal and despite the fact that it is NOT considered to be a country by 192 countries just to present the view of a single country. Congrats for your level of professionalism on this article and after seeing this I have no more words.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.133.201.70 (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
It exists in reality on the ground, so it is significant. Is still listed as disputed. We're not saying what's right and what's wrong. Bazonka (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah sure. If one day Turkey(for example) decides not to recognize the UK go and change the status of the UK to be a partially recognized state and argue that it is not a proper country. Instead of showing that the TRNC is disputed, you changed its status to be an island nation with limited recognition clearly abusing the phrase "partially recognized" as it is declared illegal by the UN. If it was listed as a disputed territory(which it is as Cyprus claims its territory) instead of an island nation would it be a non neutral point of view? Again, well done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.133.201.70 (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
1 out of 192 is partial. Not 0% and not 100%, so it's partial. I therefore fail to see how I am "abusing the phrase" when it is a simple statement of fact. It may not be a fact that you, the UN, or the vast majority of nations, are comfortable with, but that doesn't change that fact that TRNC is recognised as an independent nation by Turkey. (I should point out that I am not pro-Turk by any means. I have no strong feelings about who has sovereignty over Cyprus.) Bazonka (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
The problem is not that there is a dispute on whether it is a sovereign state or not but that you take Turkey's side and present it as an island nation instead of being neutral and present it as just a disputed territory/disputed country. A clearly biased move. If a random country decided now not to recognize the UK would you have the same feelings? Would you accept comments such as "1 out of 192 is partial"? I bet you wouldn't. You fail to provide sources that TRNC is an island nation and yet you present it as such. Like that its not enough, you misleadingly comment it as partially recognized( 1 Vs 193) instead of "recognized only by Turkey". All in all there is a state which is not recognized from all but one country and you present it as a partially recognized country with limited recognition instead of as a disputed territory. If you still fail to see whats wrong then I'm sorry. I just thought that an encyclopedia was accurate112.133.201.70 (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
It does say "recognised only by Turkey". Bazonka (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Does it now? What about the POV of Cyprus(and the international community's) that it not a separate country? Why isn't it also marked as disputed territory as this is what the Cyprus Dispute is about and instead marked as a country?112.133.201.70 (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
"Recognised only by Turkey" implies that the rest of the world does not recognise. If you are not happy with this, then I suggest you raise your concerns elsewhere, such as WP:NPOVN or WP:3. Bazonka (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Is this an article about a sea or legal status of countries ? TRNC is a fact regardless of the number of countries which recognize it. (There are other countries around Mediterranean which are partially recognized by others.) I don't think this discussion is a fruitful one. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

One image per country

An image I've uploaded to gallery was deleted. The rationale was that the number of images is limited to 1 per country to prevent overload. Understandable, but I wonder if there is a WP rule to that effect ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

There's no rule as far as I know, it is just a practical consideration to limit the size of the gallery and regulate nationalistic pride. Feel free to regularly change the images in the gallery and add images from countries/territories that as yet do not feature in the gallery such as Monaco. - Takeaway (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Basin countries - Edit request

The "basin countries" in the Infobox are serious or there is something strange about them? --E4024 (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Completely useless variable.In the definition it is required that all countries should be listed. But the editor has included Black Sea, so more than half of Europe has been listed (Germany, Poland, Russia etc.) But for some reason, Red Sea is excluded. In the original format there are 29 variables. Only 7 of them are used in this article. We can as well do without basin countries. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
The list of basin countries is based on this map. The previous list of basin countries was wholly inadequate. - Takeaway (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
So Russia is a Mediterranean basin country and Jordan not. I'm sure Catherina II would be delighted to hear this. But anyway I didn't say that the list is unsourced I said it is useless.Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
That's how hydrology works. It's not always how you'd expect. I oppose removal of the list. Bazonka (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
(Rain)water from Russia eventually flows into the Mediterranean Sea, water from Jordan doesn't. It's not about politics or culture, it's about the drainage basin of the Mediterranean. The drainage basin (watershed) is an important aspect of any body of water and should be mentioned in Wikipedia articles on bodies or water. - Takeaway (talk) 11:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

This list is too long, I added the Template:Collapsible list. Now the list is hidden by default, and has an option of show [14]. However, still it is worth to discuss the removal this absurd list. Subtropical-man (talk) 11:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Please explain why mentioning the drainage basin is absurd. - Takeaway (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Since it is now hidden, then anyone who thinks it's absurd doesn't need to look at it. But it's there for anyone who wants it. Bazonka (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Malta

Malta is included in the list of countries surrounding the Mediterranean, it should not be. Malta is surrounded by the Mediterranean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.184.25.221 (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Technically, yes you're right. But omitting it from the list of Mediterranean countries would be a far worse crime. Bazonka (talk) 08:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I've reworded the text to address this. Bazonka (talk) 09:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Expansion of the Tourism, tons of places in the Mediterranean Sea, lets go Wikipedia

Expansion of the Tourism, tons of places in the Mediterranean Sea, lets go Wikipedia. David Adam Kess (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

a good idea, but my spanish is good, but not good enough to translante.:CHEERS but i still want an expansion of the Tourism, tons of places in the Mediterranean Sea, lets go Wikipedia. David Adam Kess (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Some controversial additions to the "Environmental history" section

The recent additions by User:Serten contain some fairly bold claims: for example: the wide ecological diversity typical of Mediterranean Europe was man made. Do we have any reliable sources to verify this? Jarble (talk) 02:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

First I am surprised that you think that is a bold claim - ecological diversity in Europe and other densily (human) populated areas is and has been mostly man-made and closely connected to traditional (agri)cultural use patterns and property / usage differences. Any basic textbook of environmental history will confirm that, take Joachim Radkau, Bernd Hermann, Uelkötter and others or refer to landscape types as heath, shrubland, transhumance or wood pasture. The med contains a lot of islands, Peninsulas, a highly varied geology and a extremly long coastline (longer than the non Maghreb Afrika) with a lot of Altitudinal zonation and together with the ferticle crescent had a head start with the most animal species useable as livestock world wide. In sofar the combination of natural and human factors is quite special and provides the base for a extremely high eco diversity.
That said, the factoid in question is rather trivial and either you check as said a basic taxtbook, or the source given itself "The Nature of Mediterranean Europe: An Ecological History" or - to make your live easier - you already can find that in the review by Brian M. Fagan on Project MUSE. In a nutshell: People have already transformed most parts of Mediterranean Europe 4,000 years ago and the man-made diversity typical of Mediterranean Europe is and has been based on the continued occupation by people gaining their livelihoods locally. Serten (talk) 08:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
No, it is not man-made, but it is human-influenced. Man did not put all of the plants and animals there, although of course his actions have shaped their distribution etc. Bazonka (talk) 08:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
One might doubt the wording, but its quite OK to call "diversity" man made. Thats the scientific perspective which is sometimes counterintuitive. Take a simple meadow, heath or alpine transhumance "Alm": Without human influence you would have a boring but highly sustainable forest, only repeated and in some ways highly disruptive human influences render highly ecodiverse and specific habitats possible. Thats man made diversity, nothing else. Actually the highest eco diversity in Germany have miitary training camps, large industrial sites and the outskirts of large cities, the Munich Panzerwiese (tank meadow) became a Habitats Directive, the Wagbachniederung, a former molasse sewage plant is now among the most important bird conservation areas in middle europe and so forth. In either case, I agree with you, the species felt invited themselves. ;) Serten (talk) 09:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
The wording is definitely wrong. "The ecological diversity was man-made" implies that humans actively put all of the plants and animals in place, which of course is nonsense. I have reworded the article to indicate that the diversity was instead shaped by mankind. Bazonka (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Who told you so? The original wording is the scientific one. Better keep up with the science. Serten (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


@Bazonka, Serten, and Epipelagic: Also, these statements appear to lend undue weight to the writings of Alfred Thomas Grove and Oliver Rackham, which they rely upon. Jarble (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't disagree with that. Bazonka (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Serten is currently applying the same undue weight to Tragedy of the commons based on the same book, The Nature of Mediterranean Europe. Who knows where this will go if Serten reads another book. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
@Epipelagic and Serten: Still, it might be appropriate to include this information as long as it is discussed alongside other significant viewpoints. The views of these authors should not overshadow the other perspectives in this article. Jarble (talk) 01:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
@ Jarble: I dont see a problem with overshadowing, as the perspective about hazards and env. history was not mentioned at all in the previous version. To underline your point about "undue weight" you have to mention other of similar credentials that a) researched the environmental history of the med to the extent Grove and others did and b) contradict Rackham / Grove or Radkau.
@ Epipelagic: Is it really so bad when someone comes up with actual science? I have just started to give an outlook on The Nature of Mediterranean Europe respectively the environmental history of the region and wrote an article about Alfred Thomas Grove. His credentials are great and exactly cvovering the articles topic. The book with Rackham alone would be an excellent base of a separate article Environmental history of of Mediterranean Europe, as he summarizes and puts into context centuries of reasearch and popular believes about the nature of the Med. As long as Epipelagic or others don't discuss or provide actual science but just express a fear of actual science being able to endanger their believes, thats a bad start. If you have doubts about the conclusions - and can provide actual science countering it - so start listing evidence, but not private opionion. Serten (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Serten II: I'm still confused by some parts of this discussion. Earlier you mentioned that the "highest eco diversity in Germany have miitary training camps, large industrial sites and the outskirts of large cities.". Is this statement supported by any third-party sources? Jarble (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jarble:. It may sound surprising to lay people, but its basic freshman stuff and applies not only to Germany. Check the sources for "Species diversity has been found to peak in fringe regions between urban and rural areas" in urban ecology. Its a trivial part of the legal setup of zoning and planning law, compare quote (diversity is higher in large cities compared to agricultural zones, City of Bremen Zoning planning). The whole topic was started in the 1925ies, found a larger focus since the 1980ies and of cause after the wall came down 1989.
  1. Military: See e.g. Konversion und Naturschutz / Dieter Wallschläger and further University of Potsdam hconferences and programs, e.g. http://publishup.uni-potsdam.de/opus4-ubp/frontdoor/index/index/docId/678 or [http://www.tu-cottbus.de/fakultaet4/de/oekologie/forschung/projekte/abgeschlossene-projekte/offenland.html There are even studies how to substitute Missing Dynamics on Former Military Training Areas http://pub.uni-bielefeld.de/publication/1636124 after they have been left by the military. Serten II (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Serten II and Epipelagic: Nonetheless, I would expect pristine landscapes such as old-growth forests to be more biodiverse than urban or agricultural areas. Is my intuition correct? Jarble (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Serten II: Earlier in this discussion, you wrote that "Without human influence you would have a boring but highly sustainable forest". Would human activities reduce the amount of biodiversity in an old-growth forest with no previous human influence? Jarble (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Your intuition is the common wisdom, but completely on the wrong track. First, there is nothing like a "pristine" forest and biodiversity in a given biotop or as such is no realistic goal per se but a sort of ideology, trying to fight globalization. Compare Radkau, era of ecology p617 (german). The most pristine forests in Europe are former royal hunting grounds protected from farmers sending their cattle in. As well in the US "wilderness" does not exist any more since humans started to use fire. Traditional (and different) forms of Agriculture produced the highest diversity in Europe till the 1930ies, you cannot go back there without force, either on people or by machines. 08:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Serten II: Is it possible that agriculture could be beneficial to biodiversity in Europe, in spite of its harmful effects on the natural environment? Jarble (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, it depends on the technology - and as well on the patterns of agriculture. 1930ies agriculture was highly beneficial to biodiversity. But would you like to force people to turn back to those days? And to quote another WP article with strong defictits doesnt help with your question. Better read actual science ;) Serten II (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the flag icons and associated redundant links as I see no need for all those little images and the link redundancy they include. If anyone feels the icons are essential then please explain your reasoning. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mediterranean Sea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems the default alignment gods have awakened, and they are not pleased ...

... now---after two+ days and 5 intervening edits---they have reverted my attempt to place a normal graphic (glamorous though it is, in this case) above an infobox template. I have accomplished this small act of art on other pages without being rejected, --so now, what's up with "Infobox Med Sea"? (Pls note my article edit of 10 November---which presented "nicely" (= glamorous graphic on top, with infobox below it) for more than 2 days!)

Is there a doctor in the house? That is, will someone knowledgeable of template design (and of high authority) please "fixit" (this infobox) so a happy lede composition can prevail? Or, if the worst is true, pls advise as to why I am (we all are) doomed by the whims of the Elevated Defaults. Thanks, and Regards.. //Jbeans (talk) 00:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Clarification on the "Settlements" section of the infobox?

What is the purpose of the Settlements section below the 'Islands' section of the infobox? I understand that it is a list of settlements, but what is the significance of those settlements in particular? Why leave out, say, Marseille? What are the criteria for being listed there? --Thek826 (talk) 00:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, some have taken issue with my corrections of the Mediterranean Sea page to be geographical instead of political. Rather than support the opposing position with facts, they simply criticised. Can those of you who take issue please explain to me why you feel it is necessary to politicise a geographical entry? Geography should be completely separate from politics. In the case of the Mediterranean Sea (and the lands surrounding it), no matter how much you or others have a deep personal desire to have a country called "Palestine" exist, it does not. I would like very much to be a cardiothoracic surgeon, but I highly doubt anyone would let me cut open their chest and do a bypass. So, unless someone can come up with legal proof that such a country as "Palestine" exists, by including it in the section on the Mediterranean Sea you have corrupted an entry on geography. While I was so desperately hoping that Scotland would vote for independence last summer, when the plebiscite did not pass, I did not immediately go to Wikipedia and change that region of the UK north of England to the "Jacobian Stuart Kingdom of Scotland." I will give those opposing the correction toward fact-based geography the opportunity to change the Mediterranean Sea entry back to what reflects geographic reality. I think it is important that someone other than myself do it to prove that it is understood that geography is geography, not some subjective and arbitrary platform for the expression of personal political opinions. Dpbf (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)DPBF

spellings

I noticed the article had American Spellings in it, and I looked to the original version of the article, and, the Americans had written it, used "kilometer" as opposed to "kilometre" so there it is. I switched the article back accordingly.

British English seems more appropriate to me, as that's the variant that's spoken in the English-speaking territories around the sea (Gibraltar, Akrotiri & Dhekelia, Malta). It's not always about the variant that the article first used. Bazonka (talk) 11:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Which version is more prevalent in Spain, Italy, France? Also countries on the med. It really is almost always about the first variant the article used, especially as all the places you named, save Gibraltar, don't have English as their official language.
Wrong and wrong. Akrotiri and Dhekelia are British territories so British English is their official language, and English is one of the official languages of Malta - Maltese English of course, but that's much closer to BrE than to AmE. As for the variant we use in articles, see WP:ENGVAR. In this case, MOS:TIES applies which trumps the which-was-used-first approach. (It does not matter which version is most used in Spain etc. as these are not native English-speaking countries, although I would expect that the majority of speakers there use the European variant, i.e. BrE.) Also, please remember to sign your posts in future. Bazonka (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi protect request edit on 6 July 2016

Being a popular article it over course needs protection to prevent vandalism... — 2601:183:4000:D5BD:C462:4A21:EEED:F26 (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Stickee (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Settlement criterion

Is there a criterion for "settlement" in the infobox? Gaza should probably be there - by size and notability its very close to Tel-Aviv. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC) Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Cyprus

Cyprus include the Northern Cyprus ( self-declared state (recognised only by Turkey), see also History of Cyprus at #Modern era, and in the introduction to this article, it is not very useful to clarify this particular point. Thank you for your opinions. Bear-rings (talk) 14:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Who decides it is not useful to include something that physically exists, even if generally not recognised?? Whether you like it or not, Northern Cyprus exists and therefore can be included. The fact that it is only recognised by Turkey is neither here nor there. If you arrive in North Nicosia who will check your passport - the Republic of Cyprus or the state of Northern Cyprus?? Wikipedia exists to provide as much information as possible. Just because you don't approve of the existence of Northern Cyprus is not sufficient reason for removing content. Before you remove this content again, please get general consensus to do so. Thank you. Denisarona (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Your answer: Just because you don't approve of the existence of Northern Cyprus is a personal attack and does not respond to the topic. Cyprus is an island consisting of both State parties and it is easy to find the details in the corresponding article and other. Expect the notice of other contributors, thank you. Bear-rings (talk) 08:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
That doesn't seem like a personal attack to me, and it is certainly not off-topic. My opinion is that Northern Cyprus does de facto exist, and it is notable; therefore it should be mentioned in this article, but of course it needs an explanatory note to show that it is disputed. Bazonka (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Just because you don't approve of the existence of Northern Cyprus is not a personal attak ? Bear-rings (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
It's personal, but my view is that it's not an attack. Seems like a relevant comment to me. You can raise it at WP:ANI if you strongly disagree, but I wouldn't advise it. Bazonka (talk) 05:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Back to the subject of including Northern Cyprus or not, in my opinion it would be best to not include it in "list of countries" as it is not a country that is acknowledged by the UN, but it can be included into the section directly below it which starts with "Several other territories also border...", and it can have the caveat attached to it that it is only acknowledged by Turkey. - Takeaway (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

This boils down to that old question of what is a country. If we're sticking to UN members only, then your solution seems OK. But in another sense Northern Cyprus is still a country - a largely-unrecognised state is still a state with recognition - and so arguably it should remain (with explanatory note) in the countries section. Bazonka (talk) 05:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
If I remember well, the State of Palestine was successfully removed each time from the country list until they finally received a certain measure of recognition by the UN. There are similar cases on Wikipedia where unrecognised states/territories aren't mentioned in a country list. See for instance the infobox of Caucasus, or Somaliland in the Horn of Africa article. It seems to me that Wikipedia needs to draw a line somewhere and that it should not be up to Wikipedians where that line is. UN recognition would seem to be the most reliable source when it comes down to when something is or isn't a "country". - Takeaway (talk) 09:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that is what I'm thinking as well. Athenean (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2017

Could you please stop adding landlocked countries in the Mediterranean Sea? They don't have access to the sea. Thanks! 92.96.100.140 (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The IP(s) has/have repeatedly been explained about the concept Drainage basin and why landlocked countries can be part of the Mediterranean's drainage basin. Either they don't read what they have been shown or they are just trolling. Seeing how long this has been going on now, the latter seems most plausible. - Takeaway (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mediterranean Sea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mediterranean Sea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mediterranean Sea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mediterranean Sea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Coastal or "offshore" oil and gas fields

Some info for the new section: British Gas (BG Group) and its partner, the Athens based Consolidated Contractors International Company (CCC) owned by Lebanon's Sabbagh and Koury families, were granted oil and gas exploration rights in a 25 year agreement signed in November 1999 with the Palestinian Authority. The rights to the offshore gas field are respectively British Gas (60 percent); Consolidated Contractors (CCC) (30 percent); and the Investment Fund of the Palestinian Authority (10 percent). (Haaretz, October 21, 2007). The PA-BG-CCC agreement includes field development and the construction of a gas pipeline.(Middle East Economic Digest, Jan 5, 2001). The BG licence covers the entire Gazan offshore marine area, which is contiguous to several Israeli offshore gas facilities. It should be noted that 60 percent of the gas reserves along the Gaza-Israel coastline belong to Palestine. The BG Group drilled two wells in 2000: Gaza Marine-1 and Gaza Marine-2. Reserves are estimated by British Gas to be of the order of 1.4 trillion cubic feet, valued at approximately 4 billion dollars. These are the figures made public by British Gas. Both Gaza Marine-1 and Gaza Marine-2 are very near shore, far closer than the rightful Palestine EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone) limits.

Cheers

126.243.85.139 (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Restructuring the Oceanography section

I have added precisions on water circulation under the oceanography section. I'm thinking of separating this section from the geography one and make it a full section. I would then add subsections on biogeochemistry and chemical oceanography in the oceanography section. Camcolibri1 (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Restructuring around Biodiversity

I have restructured the previous chapters “Ecology and Biota” and “Environmental History”. They were confusing and overlapping. I have changed their names to the more apt “Biodiversity” and “Environmental Issues”.

There was little info in “Ecology and Biota / Biodiversity” before. I have moved some text from a subchapter that was also called “Biodiversity” in the previous “Environmental History” into the new “Biodiversity” chapter, including links to species lists, and also added a bit about killer whales.

Finally I changed the title of that old “Biodiversity” subchapter in “Environmental Issues” to “Invasive species”.

The Biodiversity chapter could need some rewriting as it is now.

I still consider moving the paragraphs on invasive species into the Biodiversity chapter, as this is the environmental issue that is closely linked to biodiversity both in cause and effect. Comments or adjustments are welcome! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RomdalDK (talk • contribs) 16:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


Good one mate, thanks!! Camcolibri1 (talk) 09:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Oceanography and biogeochemistry sections

I separated the oceanography section from the geography one and gave more details on water circulation and the impacts on climate change.

I also added a section on biogeochemistry.

Feel free to add any detail. And I think pictures could be nice. I didn't find and chlorophyll concentration map on wikimedia, but if someone find one, that'd be grand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camcolibri1 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Shallowness and storms

Cannot find a source online, but once read Med is prone to storms, their suddenness and ferocity exacerbated by the shallowness of the Sea. Anarchangel (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

There are certainly storms in the Med, but I don't know if they are more or less frequent than in other bodies of water. It's unlikely that depth has anything to do with it. What's your source? --Macrakis (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Drainage basin

Mr IP, a Drainage basin of the Mediterranean Sea is all the land such that surface water will eventually drain into the sea - even if it passes through another country (via a river, for example) first. That is why some land locked nations are still listed on the Basin countries list in the infobox. - MrOllie (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

No landlocked countries should border the sea

I don't understand why you add landlocked countries. They don't border a sea. Can you tell me why you should add landlocked countries? I would appreciate! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.164.105.118 (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Read what is written directly above your message. - Takeaway (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Vatican City

Some users argue that rainwater from Vatican City drains into the sewers of Rome, which is in turn drained in the Mediterranean. That sounds like a stretch.

Vatican City has no natural lakes or rivers, and from how I understand a basin system is that it involves a body of water.

It's comparable to saying that Sealand is a basin country of the North Sea, because it pumps out water that was rained on it. --HyettsTheGamer2 (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Vatican City is certainly within the drainage basin of the Mediterranean (via the Tiber), as are Burundi (via the Nile) and Belarus (via the Dnieper). My question is whether it's of any use to anyone to list all the countries in the drainage basin of major seas and oceans -- see Talk:Atlantic Ocean#Drainage basin.
As for Sealand, if it were a real country, of course it would be counted as being in the drainage basin of the North Sea. --Macrakis (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Belarus and Burundi actually make sense. The Ruvyironza River in Burundi is a direct tributary of the Nile River that flows into the Mediterranean; the Pripyat River in Belarus flows into the Dnieper, that in turn flows into the Black Sea, through the Bosphorus Strait, and into the Mediterranean.

The problem with Vatican City is that it is not even located on the Tiber, or any tributary of the Tiber.

And at least with the Sealand example, it does directly deposit water into the North Sea, and it is also borders a body of water. Vatican City isn't the same case.

Your example of the Atlantic Ocean proves that every specific indirect link to a greater drainage system can be misleading. In the case of Vatican City, people could easily be misled that the Vatican is indeed on the Tiber, or carries any significant tributary when it in fact does not.

I feel like if countries like Vatican City are to be included, they should have parentheses explaining their special contribution to the drainage system, considering Vatican's role is unique and miniscule amongst other countries. --HyettsTheGamer2 (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

If rain falls in Vatican City, it ends up in the Mediterranean. It is completely irrelevant that it doesn't travel by an above-ground natural waterway. --Macrakis (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC) After all, almost all the water that reaches the Hudson from Manhattan travels through the storm sewers. Are you now going to say that Manhattan is not part of the drainage basin of the Hudson River? (Though I guess you'd have to know the sewer system pretty well to determine where the drainage divide between the Hudson and the East River is -- see [15]). Similarly for most urban areas. --Macrakis (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Manhattan isn't the most straightforward example, because for one it borders Hudson River directly to its west, and for two it is also on the Harlem River, where at one point at the tip is completely sandwiched within Manhattan between the neighborhoods of Marble Hill and Inwood before draining into the Hudson River. Greenland is considered a basin country of the Greenland Sea, even though this part of Greenland (Northeast Greenland National Park) has no streams or sewage running into it, and is also rather dry. Why is Greenland considered a drainage basin of the Greenland Sea?

Although I am starting to understand why sewage would count as a drainage system - it acts as a stream, and pours into a river. However, readers will not automatically understand what it means for Vatican City to be a "basin country". When countries with bodies of water are listed, (like with your examples of Burundi and Belarus), that's one thing, because people assume they have streams that drain into the Mediterranean Sea. But Vatican City would be confusing, and it sure confused me. How I saw it at first was somebody mistakenly assuming that Vatican City was situated on the Tiber, because geographically it is not situated on the Tiber.

Considering Vatican City's unique role to the drainage basin that is not matched by any other waterway, I'm wondering if there should be some side label or annotation explaining why it is indeed a drainage basin country of the Mediterranean. --HyettsTheGamer2 (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Very few people are as detail-oriented as you. And there are other, more difficult cases in drainage basins. For example, the Owens Valley was formerly endorheic, but since about 1913, most of its water has been diverted to Los Angeles by aqueduct. So it now drains into the Pacific Ocean. Or the Lago di Nemi not too far from Vatican City. It has no natural above-ground outlets. The Romans and Etruscans dug artificial drainage channels (emissaries), but those no longer seem to be active (or are they?), so presumably it is drained primarily through underground seepage. Crater Lake has no natural or artificial outlets, but drains through seepage which becomes springs feeding the Wood River (Oregon). --Macrakis (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Thinking twice about this now, I guess it works. The area of what is now Vatican City used to be part of the Ager Vaticanus, a marshland and floodplain of the Tiber. So therefore naturally, Vatican City is traditionally a drainage basin for the Mediterranean. And today after its development, it is artificially a drainage basin of the Mediterranean through Rome's sewage system.

On the other hand though, yes of course there are more complex geographical anomalies regarding drainage basins. Isn't already detail-oriented in itself to cite the blueprints of the Vatican's drainage system and tracing where it ends up in order to consider it a "basin country"? The drainage system Vatican City uses isn't even part of its own infrastructure; it's part of a greater Italian drainage system. That alone just obscures Vatican City's role even more.

While Vatican City is indeed able to be considered a basin country of the Mediterranean, I do think it is appropriate to add a footnote/side note that explains its role. Because whether other hydrological anomalies are less straightforward, Vatican City's role in itself still isn't very straightforward.

Yes, of course not everybody is going to look at the list, see Vatican City, and act like it's the most mysterious thing in the world. But having it listed out of context still wouldn't be the ideal way to do it, because it is the only country on that list to be a tiny landlocked country made almost completely of concrete and connected via an obscure drainage system that itself doesn't even operate. Anybody who is familiar with the basic geography of Vatican City could be misled - as with myself.

We already got people getting confused about landlocked basin countries in general being added to the list. A few times, people have already tried to delete them. In my opinion, Vatican City's case just doubles down on that confusion, especially on a source that is known to be sometimes wrong. HyettsTheGamer2 (talk) 04:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

So the question isn't whether we agree to consider whether Vatican City qualifies to be included anymore, but whether if its role should be specified? --HyettsTheGamer2 (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

As I've said elsewhere, the whole idea of listing the countries in the drainage basin of the Mediterranean strikes me as silly to start with. But if we do, we should include Vatican City and Monaco (which has no significant rivers, and lots of sewer drainage) without further comment. --Macrakis (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree, I don't understand the basin listing criteria. It is silly for Burundi and Vatican City.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 10:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mediterranean_Sea/Archive_1&oldid=1260607371"