File talk:Historical Europe-Asia boundaries 1700 to 1900.png

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

ffs, stop adding unreferenced stuff to the map. I spent half a day researching it to make sure everything on it is solidly based on maps from the time period indicated. If you have a reference, fine, let's see it. If you do not, make your own crappy unreferenced map but don't mess up other people's work. --Dbachmann (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Line I

[edit]

Hello, there is no comment for line I. Does someone has an idea ? Best regards (P.S. : I apologise for my English which is not my native language...)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylevien (talk • contribs)

From what I can tell, it appears to be the en:Kura River. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's vandalism, see my comment above. Seriously, I spent hours compiling a well-referenced map, and for some reason people do not respect that. Upload your own unreferenced image but don't trash the work of others please. --Dbachmann (talk) 09:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


ok, the title of this image is explicitly "1700 to 1900". If you can cite a map published between 1700 and 1900 which uses an additional convention, you are very welcome to improve my map. If your source dates to the 17th or the 20th century, let's see it and we might extend the scope of the map. If you cannot cite any such a source, you are not welcome to mess with this map, and you can kindly upload your own version under a different title. Thank you. --Dbachmann (talk) 07:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kura and Rioni, possibly Aras

[edit]

The rivers Kura, Rioni and Aras have all been proposed as boundaries. Some of the sources below:

--Vancho (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Herodatus was not 1700-1900. Is there a more accessible source for the other rivers, or a quote from that one? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I explicitly wanted to make this about modern definition. Definitions prior to 1500 or so aren't really comparable to modern ones because the territory shown in the map hadn't even been explored. It is, for example, entirely pointless to ask in which continent Herodotus placed Yugorsky Peninsula. If you want to show Herodotus' boundaries, it would be best to do it on Herodotus' world map, or at least a map that only includes territories known to Herodotus.

But of course a reference showing that the Kura boundary was used or proposed in Soviet literature would be of interest. Note that this is distinct from a reference to Soviet-era literature making statements about Herodotus. Unfortunately, I cannot tell what is being talked about in the 1964 "Soviet Geography" reference from snippet view. I have looked at a couple of Soviet maps and I am pretty sure it didn't occur to anyone in the Soviet Union to use the Kura boundary. --Dbachmann (talk) 06:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very confusing and incomplete

[edit]

This map claims to depict various continental boundaries used up to the 1920s; however, even a quick search of this website reveals this isn’t accurate, especially with regard to the Caucasus. For example, here’s an Austrian map from 1892 published by Meyers Konversations-Lexikon, which includes the entire Caucasus in Europe. Also, this British physical map of Europe from the turn of the century goes even further. There’s clearly ample precedent of various lines drawn through the Caucasus. It seems arbitrary that this particular map excludes them but includes others and doesn't explain reasoning, which is misleading.2600:1700:20:1D80:78BC:C0DF:52EA:113F 22:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Browsed some more and found yet another map that covers the Caucasus and is not accounted for here. It's a Russian map from 1874 at the British Library. So the notion that this area was not included in the 19th century maps simply does not hold up.--2600:1700:20:1D80:455A:F666:4174:26E2 23:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the aforementioned examples follow the river Aras (https://www.britannica.com/place/Caucasus "another scheme identifies the Aras River and the Turkish border as the line of continental demarcation"). For that reason, it's even more to the south than the current line I on the map (the River Kura). Unfortunately, I don't have the technical skills to add another line to the map. If anyone is able, there should also be line "J" for Aras definition to reflect the 1874 map and possibly others.--Aunyu (talk) 02:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An obviously unfinished line shouldn't be on the map. Whatever the source is, presumably it would have a completed link. File:Соловьёв (1874) p359.jpg is a different line, so I don't know why you're citing it in your edits. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The line begins where it begins because that is where the river it follows begins. The fact that it doesn't make sense visually doesn't change the fact that it has been used as part of the continental demarcation since the Tsarist era (The Journal of Geography, Volume 11, 1887: "the official boundary runs from about the mouth of the Kura river through the Caspian Sea..."). Also, I find it very selective that someone would take so much time to pick on this one line while ignoring the fact that this map is obviously incomplete and misleading about it's 1700 to 1900 "historical" nature. Whatever you think of line I, it is an improvement over the existing map, which is just plain wrong in asserting that it includes definitions up to 1920, when it definitely does not. I do not have the technical skills to add another line J, so for that reason I cannot remake the graphic as it is on that 1874 map. If you can draw better lines, nothing is stopping you from doing so but removing existing line improves nothing.--Aunyu (talk) 03:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that it follows part of a river. However, clearly that river isn't the whole line, and there is a large gap being put onto the map with this insertion. If you can provide a map which uses the line, such as from that article, then that would be able to be a useful source as it will have the actual line. There is no guarantee this image is complete, however adding half lines to it doesn't provide clarity. If there is a map in that Journal of Geography article, please provide it. If there is such a map, it is easy enough to add both lines to the map. If such a map is not found, then if partial lines are stopped being forced into the image, it will be stable enough to add the File:Соловьёв (1874) p359.jpg line. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what "stable enough" map would be like. It seems to me that this map has been kept in its incomplete state for one arbitrary reason or another. If it is so easy to add another line, why hasn't it been added already? What is stopping the author of this map or yourself from adding another line along the boundary of File:Соловьёв (1874) p359.jpg? I would if I could. Besides, the line "I" does not in any way prevent addition of the File:Соловьёв (1874) p359.jpg line, even if they intersect at some section. The point of this map is not to be visually appealing or symmetrical, but to show various definitions whatever they may be.--Aunyu (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Рагин1987: you were able to change coloring on the map and seem to have some proficiency in editing maps, are you able and willing to add another line as it appears on File:Соловьёв (1874) p359.jpg? I am not able to do so and my pleas are going unanswered, I think everyone would be indebted if you could.--Aunyu (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A stable enough one would be one where incomplete lines aren't being edit warred in. Please just provide a map like File:Соловьёв (1874) p359.jpg for the Kura line. As to the new image, that seems a good one with complete lines, but that is a huge COM:OVERWRITE issue and a copyright issue, as it clearly isn't an update of this file (or match the existing caption). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many historical demarcations of the continental border between Europe and Asia historically did include several demarcations south of the Caucasus Range (red line). As I understand it, based on this discussion, the problem is that the additional orange line is not drawn reliably and correctly enough.--Рагин1987 (talk) 10:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much. As I said above, all that is needed is a relevant atlas map or similar to source the line to, like File:Соловьёв (1874) p359.jpg. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll try to recreate the line according to this map. --Рагин1987 (talk) 10:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did! By the way, it is possible that the previous "unfinished" line was based on this:

--Рагин1987 (talk) 11:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work Рагин1987! Can you update the caption with the map(s) you used? The inset map appears to be from File:Soulier, E.; Andriveau-Goujon, J. Anciens Empires Jusqua Alexandre. 1838.jpg, they appear to be the borders of different empires. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Рагин1987, you are a hero! And so talented as well, very neat looking line and shading. As you said above, I believe this follows the 1874 map (File:Соловьёв (1874) p359.jpg), so I'll amend the caption to say that, since line I isn't Kura anymore.--Aunyu (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! --Рагин1987 (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Historical_Europe-Asia_boundaries_1700_to_1900.png&oldid=706880360"