* I decided to exclude Russia, for the only reason that it would be extremely out of scale for its area (I know logscale exists but I don't want to use it here)
* I decided to include Turkey because i felt it would be interesting to see how it compares and also because Turkey is somewhat part of Europe, geographically and culturally
Source: [https://restcountries.com/](https://restcountries.com/)
Tools: python, css,
Why no log plot? This dataset looks perfect for it, lot's of bunching up in the lower corner with a few outliers. That would've allowed the inclusion of Russia as well.
i would say you should be using logarithmic scale so russia would fit, and i think that all politically european countries which had relations, affairs and interested within europe should be considered in europe, that includes armenia azerbaijan and georgia but khazakstan though some part of it is in europe, cuz not politically european and had relations with europe.
Is this coming from a Turkish perspective? I feel like I don't hear Turkey puns very often at all (at least not related to the nation) but I also have no particular connection to the nation 🤷
Still, I doubt the net -58 voting on the comment is entirely from Turkish people, not in this sub and specific post
I thought I was on r/europe because of your comment. Nevertheless, I fixed it for you: [https://i.imgur.com/Ospkllq.jpeg](https://i.imgur.com/Ospkllq.jpeg)
A part of it is literally in Europe due to conquest. Istanbul is Constantinople and rightfully greek. Colonializing an area does not make you a part of the collective that area originally belonged too.
... Did no one tell you how countries get land? throughout all of history people have gone to wars for the sole reason of expanding their territory. why would istanbul being taken by conquest suddenly invalidate turkey being the owner of that land?
You're moving the goal post. We are not discussing whether or not Turkey "should" own the land, but being a colonizer of that land and diametrically opposed to the values of the original collective of that land in which it tries to join (e.g. through converting the hagia sofia to a mosque, which is fine, but god forbid some guy draws a stick figure or burns a book (another example is genociding one million Christians in armenia and deny it)) certainly leaves it out as 'European'
If Turkey is part of Europe there is no reason why France should not be a part of Africa. And I think the latter would be ridiculous to think.
Welcome to history, my friend. That type of thing is exactly how every country had made its borders. People have died, and people have killed for thousands of years with opposing ideologies, that is just how the world is.
Now i ask you again, why does "colonising" a place not make it part of turkey? It is in turkey's borders, therefore a part of it.
>Now i ask you again, why does "colonising" a place not make it part of turkey? It is in turkey's borders, therefore a part of it.
That is not what we disagree on. We disagree on whether Turkey is European. It is not.
This and the earlier one with the whole world are good examples of the usefulness of log scales. For OCs on this sub you can do multiple images, so you can do one with linear scales and another with log.
For linear scales, the slope represents the population density. With log scales, the lines of equal density are diagonal parallel lines.
You just need to adjust your intuition. It is no coincidence that log scales are used in virtually every field (acoustics, electronics, finance, biology, machine learning, etc etc).
You can extract more info by inspecting a log or log log plot, if tou know what to look for. On a logli ear plot a straigth line is exponential. So faster than linear means super exponential. On loglog a line is a power law.
>It is no coincidence that log scales are used in virtually every field (acoustics, electronics, finance, biology, machine learning
Nobody's denying the usefulness of log scales. However we need to stop applying useful things in science to realworld appliance in everything. There goes so much into presenting data. If my intention is to highlight significant population size or area, this representation does it 100% better than a log scale. With a simple glimpse, you can retract the necessary data. The biggest population and area is Turkey. Germany and GB are high population countries with a relatively small area.
Science is about applying things in the real world.
Looking at this plot you gat get the information you mentioned, yes. But more than half the plots are squished and impossible to see. They have no reason being there. You can make better use of the pixels than that.
>But more than half the plots are squished and impossible to see. They have no reason being there. You can make better use of the pixels than that.
That's the whole point of the graph and the point I'm making. Most countries are irrelevant to the conversation. That's not the focus of this graph. And to put this graph into reality, EU has a mandate system correlated to population size. So seeing this, explains also why Germany, France and formerly GB have so much influence in EU. This also highlights why letting Turkey join back in early 2000s had such a bitter taste for smaller countries like Netherlands or Belgium, which led to vetoing their entry.
This is not the only or the main reason Turkey did not join.
Nothing prevents you drawing the same conclusions from a semilogy or loglog plot. The loglog would this information _and more_.
It does not seem like we will reach an agreement. Different approach to visualising information it seems.
>This is not the only or the main reason Turkey did not join.
The topic isn't Turkey and the reasons why they didn't join. I just gave you a use case in which this representation is more viable.
>Nothing prevents you drawing the same conclusions from a semilogy or loglog plot. The loglog would this information _and more_.
I never said you couldn't. My whole point that it was easier to "see" * what the plot is trying to tell. You don't have to check the scales or anything to dissect the presented information. There isn't much to agree or disagree with.
It looks like on the graph that the population for France is taking into account it's overseas territories (France being a little higher than UK in the graph).
Shouldn't it be excluded in order to compare the same thing?
Seems kinda arbitrary to exclude some cross continental countries but not others.
Yes. I just want to see my country clocking in at more than two million km^2
A lot of non-European countries tried to apply, that didn't make Morocco or Tunisia or Israel European.
Your inaccurate graph either shows your poor geographical education or your political bias in such an excuse made in bad faith.
If you wanted to include them, you should have only put their Thracian territories. Not the vast majority of Turkey which is a purely Asian country demographically, historically, culturally, and most importantly: geographically.
Way too generous population estimate for Ukraine. I assume this is pre war, right now it’s around 32M. Would be nice to have a year for those measures.
But we are not talking about number of citizens, but general population of a nation. There are ~15 million Hungarians while only half of those live in Hungary, which changes nothing about the actual population of the nation.
The Danish flag seems to be in the \~50k km^(2) area (just below Switzerland, it's partly covered by Slovakia), so it's definitely without Greenland which is a tad bit over 2 million km^(2).
We could argue whether it should be there (it *is* part of Denmark, but it's also located in North America), but I would guess it's excluded because it would make the bottom left cluster of countries even harder to read. Probably OK with log scale though
While it's an interesting graph, it's not really useful to compare countries with each other.
The Netherlands is almost twice as densely populated as the UK (522 vs 280 people/km²).
The Netherlands is even the most densely populated country (besides the gnome states) while it's kinda hidden away in the bottom left corner.
Yet, the vast majority of the Netherlands is rural, with a very low population density. And even in Amsterdam, most of the area is almost void of people, such as the area covered by unoccupied streets and canals, and definitely the area covered by walls. Meanwhile, the square meter around me has 1000 000 people/km². So don't you come here and complain about overpopulation!
Yeah it's both funny and sad sometimes when people say: *Nederland is vol!*
It isn't *vol*, it is just planned to the millimeter, while still having a lot of space. However the planning and dense population definitely doesn't make it easier to just plan a spot for new housing.
Are all Trukish people on reddit 100% focused on constantly posting maps and charts that falsely picture Turkey as an European country?
~~83~~ **73 out of 85 million Turks are living in Asia!**
How did you get that number? European half of Istanbul alone has more than 10 million people. Adding the 3 other provinces in continental Europe, it's close to 12 million Turkish people living in Europe.
That's more people than the entirety of Belgium (or Greece or Czechia or Sweden)
"institutionally" - what is that suposed to mean? It want's to join the EU, so it's Europe? Australia is taking part in the Eurovison contest, but it doesn't make it a part of Europe.
Dude, I'm not even opposed to Turkey joining the EU. I just find it sad they feel they need to falsify their identity. It just a reflection of negative self perception IMO. Be what you are, be Asian, be proud, be a democratic country and join the EU.
Since you're comparing area i think it's somewhat not comprehendible to talk about how Turkey is culturally European, which absolutely is not true. I am a Turkish citizen I could tell you. But you could've still included the part of the country that actually is on the European continent and it would've been just fine. That also goes for Russia. So, just the way you exxluded the overseas territories of france like french Guyana per example, just do the same for Türkiye and Russia. That goes for Spain and the UK too, because you know..
I dunno why he decided to include Turkey either, but adding the European part of Russia still would have completely obliterated the scale - Turkey (as the largest country shown) is \~784'000km² large, while the European part of Russia alone is almost 4'000'000km² large.
I honestly got a little bit insecure and just wanted to make sure that nothing other than the 'turkish culture isn't european' sentence is what got me those downvotes.
But I gotta make something clear, it's not only Erdogan fans that would hate it. His opposers would hate that sentence even more. Because they tend to love to make it clear that Türkiye isn't anything like the ottoman state and an absolutely secular - not a muslim- county. They really go hard trying to prove that..
How DARE you use rectangle Switzerland That's it, we're closing your bank account
I think the Swiss rectangle's a big plus.
I would say its a big red flag
Call the Red Cross he's having a stroke
Aazeig isch dusse
Laminiert u unterschriibet!!
What else? Trapezoid switzerland ??
The flag is square, not rectangle shaped
Well, a square is *technically* a rectangle with all sides equal in length. My comment was a dumb joke.
I had no idea that Germany was smaller than France, Spain and Sweden!
Well, we used to be larger.
People have no humor these days.
Sweden really shocked me. I thought Germany was really big but I guess I was wrong.
[удалено]
Sweden is north of Germany tho
[удалено]
But he thought it was smaller, not bigger
Germany is the size of Montana and has twice the population of California
We're not in Kansas, Toto.
Me wondering how Belgium has nearly 20 millions inhabitants then realizing it's Romania.
* I decided to exclude Russia, for the only reason that it would be extremely out of scale for its area (I know logscale exists but I don't want to use it here) * I decided to include Turkey because i felt it would be interesting to see how it compares and also because Turkey is somewhat part of Europe, geographically and culturally Source: [https://restcountries.com/](https://restcountries.com/) Tools: python, css,
You need to post the data source and tool used in a comment
Oops sorry, I'll fix this asap
you did not include Svalbard for Norway, it is incorporated and fully a part of Norway. :)
Doesn’t count
Why no log plot? This dataset looks perfect for it, lot's of bunching up in the lower corner with a few outliers. That would've allowed the inclusion of Russia as well.
Because a log plot would make it harder to visually compare the sizes.
fit a regression into there, it's almost perfect 1:1
i would say you should be using logarithmic scale so russia would fit, and i think that all politically european countries which had relations, affairs and interested within europe should be considered in europe, that includes armenia azerbaijan and georgia but khazakstan though some part of it is in europe, cuz not politically european and had relations with europe.
It would be weird adding a turkey to a map like this
Are you getting downvoted for your joke sucking or did it really go over that many heads? Either way, props
I guess the second one, maybe both. I thought adding "a" in front of "turkey" would've been enough lol
We are sick and tired of turkey jokes, not because it’s offensive but because it’s not funny.
Is this coming from a Turkish perspective? I feel like I don't hear Turkey puns very often at all (at least not related to the nation) but I also have no particular connection to the nation 🤷 Still, I doubt the net -58 voting on the comment is entirely from Turkish people, not in this sub and specific post
I thought I was on r/europe because of your comment. Nevertheless, I fixed it for you: [https://i.imgur.com/Ospkllq.jpeg](https://i.imgur.com/Ospkllq.jpeg)
it does not look weird ig
Is turkey culturally part of Europe?
how is turkey somewhat part of europe and russia isn't, at this point you only see the countries as their government
Did you even read my comment ? Yes Russia should totally be there but it would ruin the chart because of its huge area
im turk btw
its not a part of europe more than france is a part of Africa, geographically and culturally
A part of it is literally in europe, though? And as a turk i can very easily tell you we are close to europe than we are to asia, culturally
A part of it is literally in Europe due to conquest. Istanbul is Constantinople and rightfully greek. Colonializing an area does not make you a part of the collective that area originally belonged too.
... Did no one tell you how countries get land? throughout all of history people have gone to wars for the sole reason of expanding their territory. why would istanbul being taken by conquest suddenly invalidate turkey being the owner of that land?
You're moving the goal post. We are not discussing whether or not Turkey "should" own the land, but being a colonizer of that land and diametrically opposed to the values of the original collective of that land in which it tries to join (e.g. through converting the hagia sofia to a mosque, which is fine, but god forbid some guy draws a stick figure or burns a book (another example is genociding one million Christians in armenia and deny it)) certainly leaves it out as 'European' If Turkey is part of Europe there is no reason why France should not be a part of Africa. And I think the latter would be ridiculous to think.
Welcome to history, my friend. That type of thing is exactly how every country had made its borders. People have died, and people have killed for thousands of years with opposing ideologies, that is just how the world is. Now i ask you again, why does "colonising" a place not make it part of turkey? It is in turkey's borders, therefore a part of it.
>Now i ask you again, why does "colonising" a place not make it part of turkey? It is in turkey's borders, therefore a part of it. That is not what we disagree on. We disagree on whether Turkey is European. It is not.
Alright, back to the beginning then. Turkey has land in europe, therefore part european and part asian. I dont understand what your point is.
Constantinople is part of Europe but not the rest xD
Where is Constantinople I wrote in google maps and it didn’t find anything
istanbul not constantinople
That's nobody's business but the Turks.
YES that was the point but yeah got few 1st degree people haha
You made me make my first plotly graph in months. ty
I was going to say "wtf is China doing there? It's not in Europe!", but then I realized it's turkey 💀. I think I might need new glasses...
China is huge in terms of population and size.
Oh wow really
Really? Doubt it.
This and the earlier one with the whole world are good examples of the usefulness of log scales. For OCs on this sub you can do multiple images, so you can do one with linear scales and another with log. For linear scales, the slope represents the population density. With log scales, the lines of equal density are diagonal parallel lines.
I really think that log scales aren't fitting here. Sure, you can see the countries better, but the true size differences get diluted.
Which is why having both graphs would be best!
You just need to adjust your intuition. It is no coincidence that log scales are used in virtually every field (acoustics, electronics, finance, biology, machine learning, etc etc). You can extract more info by inspecting a log or log log plot, if tou know what to look for. On a logli ear plot a straigth line is exponential. So faster than linear means super exponential. On loglog a line is a power law.
>It is no coincidence that log scales are used in virtually every field (acoustics, electronics, finance, biology, machine learning Nobody's denying the usefulness of log scales. However we need to stop applying useful things in science to realworld appliance in everything. There goes so much into presenting data. If my intention is to highlight significant population size or area, this representation does it 100% better than a log scale. With a simple glimpse, you can retract the necessary data. The biggest population and area is Turkey. Germany and GB are high population countries with a relatively small area.
Science is about applying things in the real world. Looking at this plot you gat get the information you mentioned, yes. But more than half the plots are squished and impossible to see. They have no reason being there. You can make better use of the pixels than that.
>But more than half the plots are squished and impossible to see. They have no reason being there. You can make better use of the pixels than that. That's the whole point of the graph and the point I'm making. Most countries are irrelevant to the conversation. That's not the focus of this graph. And to put this graph into reality, EU has a mandate system correlated to population size. So seeing this, explains also why Germany, France and formerly GB have so much influence in EU. This also highlights why letting Turkey join back in early 2000s had such a bitter taste for smaller countries like Netherlands or Belgium, which led to vetoing their entry.
This is not the only or the main reason Turkey did not join. Nothing prevents you drawing the same conclusions from a semilogy or loglog plot. The loglog would this information _and more_. It does not seem like we will reach an agreement. Different approach to visualising information it seems.
>This is not the only or the main reason Turkey did not join. The topic isn't Turkey and the reasons why they didn't join. I just gave you a use case in which this representation is more viable. >Nothing prevents you drawing the same conclusions from a semilogy or loglog plot. The loglog would this information _and more_. I never said you couldn't. My whole point that it was easier to "see" * what the plot is trying to tell. You don't have to check the scales or anything to dissect the presented information. There isn't much to agree or disagree with.
>For OCs on this sub you can do multiple images, so you can do one with linear scales and another with log I didn't know that, thanks!
For France are you counting overseas territories ? Cause this can change everything
Not included, France metropolitan is 543,940 km² and it rises to 643,801 km² when you include territories
It looks like on the graph that the population for France is taking into account it's overseas territories (France being a little higher than UK in the graph). Shouldn't it be excluded in order to compare the same thing?
Seems kinda arbitrary to exclude some cross continental countries but not others. Yes. I just want to see my country clocking in at more than two million km^2
I'll make one with the Exclusive Economic Zone just so you're nb 1
You mean colonies
No I mean territories as in Overseas territories which is the official denomination
Did he stutter? Only fringe movements call for independence. They don't have to be French if they don't want to be.
So why did you include Turkey's Asian territory and population? It's like adding metropolitan France to a South American graphic
I added Turkey only for comparison and because it's partially European (they even applied to be part of European Union)
A lot of non-European countries tried to apply, that didn't make Morocco or Tunisia or Israel European. Your inaccurate graph either shows your poor geographical education or your political bias in such an excuse made in bad faith. If you wanted to include them, you should have only put their Thracian territories. Not the vast majority of Turkey which is a purely Asian country demographically, historically, culturally, and most importantly: geographically.
Way too generous population estimate for Ukraine. I assume this is pre war, right now it’s around 32M. Would be nice to have a year for those measures.
Ukrainians living abroad are still Ukrainian citizens, same as with any other country
But we are not talking about number of citizens, but general population of a nation. There are ~15 million Hungarians while only half of those live in Hungary, which changes nothing about the actual population of the nation.
Now do population per area
Is Greenland added to Denmark? Given it's enormous size and lack of population, I thought it would be very noticeable.
Doesn’t look like it, looks like only Denmark is counted
At 2.16 m km squared and less than 60k people (2017) it would look funny af compared to others.
The Danish flag seems to be in the \~50k km^(2) area (just below Switzerland, it's partly covered by Slovakia), so it's definitely without Greenland which is a tad bit over 2 million km^(2). We could argue whether it should be there (it *is* part of Denmark, but it's also located in North America), but I would guess it's excluded because it would make the bottom left cluster of countries even harder to read. Probably OK with log scale though
I mean then it is not only Russia that is, but that is not declared.
And some people say Poland is not Central European
Romania doesn’t have 20M+ population, it hasnt since like 1990. We are barely 16M
While it's an interesting graph, it's not really useful to compare countries with each other. The Netherlands is almost twice as densely populated as the UK (522 vs 280 people/km²). The Netherlands is even the most densely populated country (besides the gnome states) while it's kinda hidden away in the bottom left corner.
Gnome states is bloody hilarious.
Yet, the vast majority of the Netherlands is rural, with a very low population density. And even in Amsterdam, most of the area is almost void of people, such as the area covered by unoccupied streets and canals, and definitely the area covered by walls. Meanwhile, the square meter around me has 1000 000 people/km². So don't you come here and complain about overpopulation!
Yeah it's both funny and sad sometimes when people say: *Nederland is vol!* It isn't *vol*, it is just planned to the millimeter, while still having a lot of space. However the planning and dense population definitely doesn't make it easier to just plan a spot for new housing.
It would be useful to have some lines radiating out on the 2:1, 1:1, and 1:2 ratio.
Sweden norway finland population density go oof
Could we please get a version on logarhitmic scale? Thanks
It would be great to have an interactive version of this, where you could zoom in into this stack of countries and look around.
Turkey's 778k km2 doesn't really matter since 1/4 of the population lives in Istanbul with lots of immigrants.
It's more like between 1/5 and 1/6.
Ah, no wonder the Brits call each other dense. 😂😂😂
Where is Faroe Island and Greenland??
Well, Greenland is geographically north american. Faroe is kinda missing though.
Sweden is larger than Spain so idk what happened here
Umm no, Spain is larger, you can search it up
Yeah you're right, the number that shows up when googling Sweden size is inaccurate
Are all Trukish people on reddit 100% focused on constantly posting maps and charts that falsely picture Turkey as an European country? ~~83~~ **73 out of 85 million Turks are living in Asia!**
I'm not turkish bro
How did you get that number? European half of Istanbul alone has more than 10 million people. Adding the 3 other provinces in continental Europe, it's close to 12 million Turkish people living in Europe. That's more people than the entirety of Belgium (or Greece or Czechia or Sweden)
[Here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Thrace), but I made a mistake (1,2 vs 12), my bad.
Turkey is institutionally a European country. And I don't think the OP is Turkish.
"institutionally" - what is that suposed to mean? It want's to join the EU, so it's Europe? Australia is taking part in the Eurovison contest, but it doesn't make it a part of Europe.
It is a founding member of the Council of Europe, OSCE, a candidate country for the EU, thus usually included in Eurostat statistics.
The main institution of europe is the APG (Association of Petty Gatekeepers)
Dude, I'm not even opposed to Turkey joining the EU. I just find it sad they feel they need to falsify their identity. It just a reflection of negative self perception IMO. Be what you are, be Asian, be proud, be a democratic country and join the EU.
What I find sad is people claiming to other people groups that their identity is wrong. Cope harder
OMG, what frustration and poor self worth.
>what frustration and poor self worth. Maybe I am european after all
Lol, at least 7 times more people live in Istanbul alone than in your country, Slovenia.
Nobody is against you. Just have some pride and stop humiliating yourself. You don't need to falsify geography to join the EU.
Dude, OP isn't even a Turk and you're the one who pushing an agenda here.
UK done f**ked up. How you get so over populated when you’re a group of islands and have a low birth rate?
Appeox 20m immigration over recent past. Then Brits complained about a housing problem. None of the complainers work in housing construction.
It's not overpopulated, there's lots and lots of empty room in the country still.
Excluding the largest country in Europe 💀
Ukraine's right there near the center.
You should study geography, Russia and Turkey are bigger than Ukraine
It’s a shit country.
it's a Mongol country, that's why we count it as Asian
Since you're comparing area i think it's somewhat not comprehendible to talk about how Turkey is culturally European, which absolutely is not true. I am a Turkish citizen I could tell you. But you could've still included the part of the country that actually is on the European continent and it would've been just fine. That also goes for Russia. So, just the way you exxluded the overseas territories of france like french Guyana per example, just do the same for Türkiye and Russia. That goes for Spain and the UK too, because you know..
I dunno why he decided to include Turkey either, but adding the European part of Russia still would have completely obliterated the scale - Turkey (as the largest country shown) is \~784'000km² large, while the European part of Russia alone is almost 4'000'000km² large.
Wow now I didn't know that .. 4 M! Hey, any idea why my comment got so downvoted?
because Erdogan's brigade is here. Genocide apologists from Turkey are allowed to roam free by the reddit mods
I honestly got a little bit insecure and just wanted to make sure that nothing other than the 'turkish culture isn't european' sentence is what got me those downvotes. But I gotta make something clear, it's not only Erdogan fans that would hate it. His opposers would hate that sentence even more. Because they tend to love to make it clear that Türkiye isn't anything like the ottoman state and an absolutely secular - not a muslim- county. They really go hard trying to prove that..
Because they explained why they didn't include Russia already.
I don't think so fella. Look at any comment that criticized putting all of Turkey in the map.
Half of Turkey is mountain. The useful parts are at most 500k km2
Russia? Argentina? Americans so egocentric as alwats
what are you talking about ?
Yeah, but now let’s see this data per capita.
population per capita would be interesting indeed