Portugal is weeping, Geert Wilders Says Netherlands Would Be Better Off if It Left 28-Nation Bloc, France can't compete with Germany, Merkel is pissed at Obama, Belgium is ousting Afgans. Is anybody happy?

Funny! I by some reason thought Georgia was in Europe.

Nah, I was right: psomizo.com/drupal/5/map-of-europe-and-asia-border

However, the following seems to be another map, which doesn't include any of the three into Europe:

According to this map, only Azerbaijan is excluded.
Another version.
And yet another (or rather rough draw).

According to this map, only Azerbaijan is excluded.
Another version.
And yet another (or rather rough draw).

In the first map, the red line excludes all three, and the brown line includes all three. It's equal to all either way.

The red line in the third map is the same as in the first map. Other lines are personal conjectures of the named guys for their apparently personal purposes.

The second map is not a geography map.

Anyway, it's clear from Jax's post that his definition is not only geographical. When you try to include cultures or religions in the definition of the continents, you get precisely what he did - doubts, guesses, probabilities, all round confusion.

This is not debatable and there's no "probably" about it.

If it is not debatable, then how come we are debating it? The "borders" of Europe have changed in the past, and probably will change in the future, and there are plenty of fiddly bits, Russia, Turkey, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan on the Eastern front. On the Western front Greenland and Iceland and some smaller places.

Culturally North Africa is closely related to Europe and the Middle-East, but few would claim the region to belong to Europe geographically, but what about Malta?

Eurasia is conventionally divided into Europe and Asia

Last time I checked there were a couple mountains called the Urals...

This is not debatable and there's no "probably" about it.

If it is not debatable, then how come we are debating it?

I was not debating. I corrected your mistake. When you disagree with your geography teacher (or any other teacher in school), is it a debate? The sides are not equal there.

Anyway, it's clear from Jax's post that his definition is not only geographical. When you try to include cultures or religions in the definition of the continents, you get precisely what he did - doubts, guesses, probabilities, all round confusion.

Geographically there is Eurasia. The separation into "Europe" and "Asia" is purely cultural and conventional. Geographically Africa is butting into Europe and is not about to stop doing that soon, but it still makes geographical sense to consider it a separate continent.

If we add plate tectonics into the picture it gets more interesting, but usually we don't base our conventions on that. It would be easier in that case to separate India from the rest of Eurasia than it would to separate Europe from it.

And then we get the islands as an icing on top.

Last time I checked there were a couple mountains called the Urals...

They came late into the definition, but was very convenient for the Russian Empire as they effectively moved Europe's boundary east. Kind of a European geographical imperialism if you wish...

If we add plate tectonics into the picture it gets more interesting, but usually we don't base our conventions on that. It would be easier in that case to separate India from the rest of Eurasia than it would to separate Europe from it.

But we do include geology too, and this is exactly how Indian subcontinent is discerned with inch precision, when needed. And the distinction of Europe and Asia goes the same way, on geological grounds. This is not a new thing.

I was not debating. I corrected your mistake. When you disagree with your geography teacher (or any other teacher in school), is it a debate? The sides are not equal there.

Hail! we had a language teacher - now we've obtained a geographer!
Jax, speaking of geology, I have a certain idea that even what? That historical continents were either not the same as the tectonic plates (or were they dishes?) - in terms of borders (it's like now, right?). But AWAIR, they talked about a "Europe" continent for that sake. (Apart from the Siberia continent etc.) IIRC, Asia was not in existence as a whole. (In American geology, there always was a "NewYork" continent, of course:) Kidding;).)

Ersi, I guess the category of subcontinents closely follows geological patterns just because it's easy to employ another - let alone closely related - "ready-made" science -- much sensible that contrive something from scratch, I guess. Geography itself, as Jax pointed out, being a rather conventional field (ha! don't forget politics, right!?).

But we do include geology too, and this is exactly how Indian subcontinent is discerned with inch precision, when needed. And the distinction of Europe and Asia goes the same way, on geological grounds. This is not a new thing.

That's where you will find that there is a Eurasian plate. There is not now, and has never been a European plate, nor a plate comprising Eurasia minus Europe. The Earth has never been divided that way. There are also plenty of smaller wiggly bits which could be excluded, or more likely included, in any definition, as the plates mostly, but not fully, confirm to our expectations. Here is a big picture:

Tectonically, neither Italy nor Greece are in Europe - they're in Africa.

That's where you will find that there is a Eurasian plate. There is not now, and has never been a European plate, nor a plate comprising Eurasia minus Europe.

I'm not sure if you're right or not entirely.
IFAIK, there used to be "Europe" and "Siberia", plus some other pieces, and I can guess that the Urals could emerge the same or similar way like/as Alps and Himalayas ('course! it was Ages ago - that's why they had plenty of time to erode).

But we do include geology too, and this is exactly how Indian subcontinent is discerned with inch precision, when needed. And the distinction of Europe and Asia goes the same way, on geological grounds. This is not a new thing.

That's where you will find that there is a Eurasian plate. There is not now, and has never been a European plate, nor a plate comprising Eurasia minus Europe. The Earth has never been divided that way.

Geography and geology is not just tectonics. The border of the Indian subcontinent is tectonic, whereas e.g. Ural Mountains between Europe and Asia are a border in terms of topographical landshape (or whatever it's called in English). Both borders are geological definitions.

You are clearly interested in geography, but I am afraid you didn't pay proper attention to the teacher when it was the right time.

That's where you will find that there is a Eurasian plate. There is not now, and has never been a European plate, nor a plate comprising Eurasia minus Europe.

I'm not sure if you're right or not entirely.
IFAIK, there used to be "Europe" and "Siberia", plus some other pieces, and I can guess that the Urals could emerge the same or similar way like/as Alps and Himalayas ('course! it was Ages ago - that's why they had plenty of time to erode).

Yes, for that reason I had to state my point carefully (saying that something never happened in the past, or will not happen in the future is a high-risk strategy). There are pieces of Europe that have wandered around in the past, and that now are in Europe, but they do not encompass the whole Europe, or they encompass pieces that are not in Europe, like the Eurasian plate.

Scandinavia and the Baltic states once snuggled up to North America, some might say they still do. The Iberian plate likewise was on its own. But Eurasia was not formed by some European plate colliding with some Asian plate like a bad fusion restaurant.

O'k, considering the topic (its title), we only need to define Europe for our purposes, right?
I suggest the following: that which is in NATO - is Europe

Europe by memberships is a nice topic, I'll return to that, but first a geographic subdivision I am partial to watersheds, or more properly drainage basins, which seas rainwater drains down to. First the big picture:



And more details for Europe:



I've been to the European watershed in the Czech Republic where in one direction the water drains to the Baltic Sea, another to the North Sea, and a third to the Black Sea.

Watersheds is bullshit. Europe is a historical construct: "here are us good guys - there are those damn barbarians".
Anyway, in our Forum, the eastern border of Europe is already somehow defined - as we already have "What's going on in Russia" separately!:)

Oh, the forum threads are overlapping, something could be going on in Russia and the UK simultaneously.

Speaking of watersheds and drainage basins, here is a map of religious majorities. It may not be relevant any more as by now we are all godless heathens.

...something could be going on in Russia and the UK simultaneously.

Like what?
Gas treaties talks on phone?

O'k, considering the topic (its title), we only need to define Europe for our purposes, right?
I suggest the following: that which is in NATO - is Europe

Like this (two orange European countries are missing on the map: Canada and the USA)?

The Council of Europe