Talk:Mulhacén

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Mountains Top‑importance

	Mountains portal This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

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)[reply]

Highest in Europe outside the Alps and Caucasus

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)[reply]

No! The Russian Caucasus is geographically in Europe! That is the border of Europe. The Transcaucasus ( azerbaijan, Armenia Georgia) is geographically Asia, whereas Chechnyaa or Dagestan, for example is Europe.Look up Elbrus. The Canary islands are Africa geographically and Greenland is America. Geography is not a question of degrees or what people generally consider. There are clear boundaries between continents. --Burgas00 23:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

What??? I cannot believe you guys are actually saying this!!! You learn this stuff in school at age 8!! Never heard of Asian Turkey and European Turkey? Are you going to try to convince me that Mexico is in South America because they speak Spanish? Or that Ceuta is actually not in Africa because it is part of Spain? Or that Edirne is not in Europe because it is part of Turkey? Or the Sinai is not in Asia? Or that French Guyana is actually in Europe because its part of France? Culture and politics is irrelevant to geography.

Being (for once) 100% sure I am right on this particular issue, I am reverting. --Burgas00 22:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To prove my point: Have a look at this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_points_of_Europe

and this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islands_of_Europe

--Burgas00 22:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Canaries were listed under Europe here after discussion among several researchers. They are part of the European Union; so, for a time, was Greenland. For cultural and political reasons, both are widely considered to be in Europe, albeit geographically incorrectly. Do most holiday makers who go to the Canaries consider themselves to have been to Africa? I do not think so. By contrast, Ceuta is physically attached to the African mainland. We can discuss the wording of the footnote but I think that it should remain. Btw, I must point out persistent complaints about POV editing at User_Talk:Burgas00, and to ask that editor to be careful not to transgress WP:CIV. Viewfinder 06:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what British or German tourists may think, I do believe it should not be a guide for our judgement on wikipedia. The fact remains that canarian people know that their islands form part of the african continent. Such a straightforward fact is not disputed by anyone, at least in Spain, where I lived for many years. If its not even disputed in Spain where else is it going to be disputed? This is simply ridiculous.

Have you even looked at the Canary islands on a map? Your statement is akin to saying "Mexico is a country in north america which for political or cultural reasons is considered to be in central america". No. its not. Mexico is in North America, even if north america has connotations in people's minds of anglo america. You are arguing a lost cause, viewfinder. --Burgas00 11:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I am well aware of the geographical location of the Canary Islands (see [1], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sorry about my lack of civility, I was just a bit shocked because I felt that you guys were arguing a point without having given it much thought beforehand. --Burgas00 00:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Height

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)[reply]

Fair comment. Internet sources vary from 3477m to 3482m. Even Spanish wikipedia shows discrepancy, see [2]. 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)[reply]

Fair enough... :-)--Burgas00 14:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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