Talk:Mulhacén

message: I changed the photo to one I took - I prefer mine but feel free to revert it. --Kick the cat 02:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: In spite of the geographical situation, the Canary Islands and Greenland are both generally considered to be more European than African or American. After all, the Caucasus are considered to be in Europe, despite being geographically in Asia. Therefore I think the word "mainland", which is indisputably correct and more NPOV, should be restored. Viewfinder 23:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect, there are not clear boundaries between continents. You have to consider politics and culture as well as geography. Politically and culturally, the Canaries are part of Europe. Even the geographical boundary between Asia and Australia is not clear cut. That Elbrus is considered to be in Europe is not in question, but physically - and culturally - the entire Caucasus range is more closely connected with Asia, whereas politically, the entire range is considered to be in Europe.  The term continent is a landmass, which mocks the whole concept of crests of mountain ranges defining continental boundaries, despite the acceptance of the Urals as such. Viewfinder 06:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reinstated the "mainland" qualification, with an explanatory note, since Europe can indeed be considered to include the Canaries and Greenland. That's not to say that any possible definition of Europe must include them---but with "mainland" in the article, it is unambiguous. As for the Caucasus, isn't that a moot issue in this particular case? -- Spireguy 19:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: With all due respect, I am well aware of the geographical location of the Canary Islands (see , which I created). Be sure also that Mexico has a long land border with the USA, and that cultural and political considerations are relevant to continental boundaries. Try telling the Armenians and Georgians that they are not Europeans, and reading WP:CIV. Thank you. Viewfinder 11:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Viewfinder on the need for civility, but I agree with Burgas00 on the current phrasing of the article. The geographical affiliation is more important, and as long as the note stays in, it's still unambiguous what is meant. I do strongly feel that the note should stay in, since even if "culture and politics is irrelevant to geography", it needs to be clear that a geographic definition is being used here. (A casual reader could be confused by the fact that Mulhacén is the highest point in the Iberian Peninsula and not the highest point in Spain, for example; the note clarifies this.) As Burgas00 points out, "mainland" unnecessarily excludes Britain, Sicily, etc. So I'm OK with leaving the word "mainland" out. But please, Burgas00, tone down your rhetoric a bit, I'd appreciate it. Thanks -- Spireguy 17:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highest in Europe outside the Alps and Caucasus 

message: There seems to be a mistake regarding height. According to Spanish source it is 3482 m... any reason for this discrepance?--Burgas00 11:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair comment. Internet sources vary from 3477m to 3482m. Even Spanish wikipedia shows discrepancy, see . According to my source in Spain, it was officially revised from 3482m to 3479m a few years ago, but there should be a verifiable source that this is correct (or not correct). I will see what I can dig up. Viewfinder 12:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I got the info from IGN and have uploaded it. I hope this settles the matter. Viewfinder 18:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Height