Talk:Europe/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about Europe. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Should mention somewhere % of Europeans with college degrees

Actually, all of the European sections need this. The US page says it (apparently 27% of Americans have college degrees) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clguy1234 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

My god, I can't understand you. Do you have a degree ;-) Tomeasy_{T C} 01:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think colleges are chartered to award degrees in Europe... Even with collegiate universities (London, Durham, Cambridge, Oxford) I believe the degree is awarded by the university rather than the college. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.35.235 (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Etymology of Lithuanian origin

The very word Europa [ˈjʊərəpa] is derived from the most ancient language of Europe, Lithuanian language and means the land surrounded by seas. 'Eura-' [ˈjʊəra] (Lith. Jura) in Lithuanian language means 'the sea' and '-pa' [ˈjʊərəp] (Lith. pa) means 'at'...it's the same as with word Prussia which in Lithuanian language means the land at/by Kiev Rus (Pa-Rus, later become Prus and Prussia or Borussia)...the prefix-suffix 'pa-' can be used at the beginning or at the end of the word like '-pa'.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.222.35.63 (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sovjet Union a part of Europe

The introduction states Both World Wars were ignited in Europe greatly contributing to a decline in European dominance in world affairs by the mid-20th century as the United States and Soviet Union took prominence. My problem with this sentence is that to me it seems to suggest that there's nothing European about the Sovjet Union, when in fact the majority of its population and its capital Moscow, were European. --Lamadude (talk) 23:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

No I think this is the way the history sources phrase it and is not ambiguous (since the phrase Soviet Union is used). European Russia is described in the article. I don't think there's any confusion, because the definition section describes aspects of Europe (political, cultural, geographical, etc). The statement in the lede is accurate, but could possibly be clarified ("decline in dominance by Western European powers" might be a better term to use). Mathsci (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the statement indeed is wrong, puzzling, and misinformed. Although it has been in the text for a very long time, my prior experience with defining "Europe" has not been very good and for this reason I have been wary of making any changes. Nevertheless, I do think that this is something that needs to be addressed. If you have a better wording to offer - and any wording can be more correct then this one - let us know.--Satt 2 (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and completely omitted the last part about the US and the USSR. I dont think it changes the meaning in any way. The only thing is that the end of the sentence which I omitted foreshadowed the discussion about the Cold War in the next sentence. It is safe to assume that our readers know who fought the cold war. If not, they can click on the cold war link and read it on a separate page. It is impossible to fit everything in like this. New suggestions, however, are still welcome.--Satt 2 (talk) 06:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Here we go....again. My edit was strangely reverted as POV seconds after I made it. Well, make better suggestions I guess.--Satt 2 (talk) 06:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

- This is not how to edit wikipedia Satt 2. Please read WP:BRD. Please don't edit war on this article.

I am not claiming that I posses any kind of absolute truth regarding this article, the geography or anything else. Its just that a legitimate concern was raised, and I tried to address it. What I also did, however, is that I stated that new suggestions would be necessary and welcome. You did not offer new suggestions, you simply rejected my solution and that's no solution at all.--Satt 2 (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note that although the article might be explaining "European Russia," it must also explain the European Soviet Union. Contrary to some uninformed views in the West, "Russia" and "Soviet Union" are not interchangeable. This way we will make things more clear for our readers who are looking for the information in the simplest terms.--Satt 2 (talk) 07:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Satt 2

Satt 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user already created problems with Europe last month. He is now removing a rather neutral and undisputed statement in the lede, already carefully sourced in the history section. This statement is neutral and anodyne. Satt 2 has already been blocked for POV-pushing. If he continues to modify sentences like this in the lede again, he can also expect a block. Mathsci (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Who is it that you are talking to? The discussion about the editing problem is above. If you do not have valid arguments thats another story. How is it that any reasonable challenge to the present wording is considered a "Problem"? People have legitimate questions and I did not start whatever you claim I did. Deal with the specific problem and worry less about whatever you found while digging in my talk page - it will be more helpful.--Satt 2 (talk) 06:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Although I don't really think there is any ambiguity at all in the sentence under discussion in the lede, I have suggested a modification above which effectively would replace European powers by Western European powers. I don't think it is necessary, because the text in the main body of the article is unambiguous. The lede after all only summarises the text in the main article, so I think it is not helpful to quibble about such points. The removal of the USA and the Soviet Union has no justification whatsoever, since it is "European" that needs to made precise in this context. Mathsci (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's just what you should have suggested instead of denying everything all together. And for your information, everything in this article - or the lead for that matter - is far from being "unambiguous." But that's just to comment on your claim.--Satt 2 (talk) 07:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have added a completely completely reasonable compromise with a source (there are many, many other sources that can be added, so please don't push things any further). You on the other hand are rendering a sentence meaningless by removing its second half which is explained in great detail in the history section. Please relinquish this WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. I do not own the article, but I am quite aware from experience that people who edit war about sentences in the lede without looking at the main body of the article are rarely serious editors and often POV-pushers. Mathsci (talk) 07:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Although I do agree with your rewording, this particular source is not very clear. It says "National Geographic" followed by what seems like a page number. Should we not be more specific? National Geographic what? A magazine? a World Atlas, or what? If its a magazine, stating just a number is misleading. It makes it appear as if it was a page number which is unreasonable since the magazine does not have 500 pages. On the other hand, if you are listing a specific VOLUME, please provide the year and the actual page in the magazine. All the other similar citations must be removed. If I use an old book from 1993 and provided only a volume number, would I expect people to go through the whole book in search of a specific information? Of course not, I would probably be banished from here very promptly.--Satt 2 (talk) 07:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Ahem, did you look at the notes and all the other references to pages in "National Geographic"? User:Hemlock Martinis added the general reference at the bottom of the References section if you scan down. Personally I usually use harvnb references, which lead first to the page number and then to the book after clicking twice. Hemlock Martinis chose this solution for his references. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 07:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, a very curious way of citing I see. Nonetheless, this National Geographic Visual book must be a real treasure since such a disproportionate amount of the citations is based on it. I regret that I never had a chance of consulting this book - or shall I say a photo album - before.--Satt 2 (talk) 07:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Please complain here. Also look at the talk archives and the edit history to see who added the numerous non Nat Geo refs when the history section was rejigged in 2007. You can provide another ref if you like, but for uncontroversial sentences in the lede, also covered in the main article, it's usually not necessary to add citations. Mathsci (talk) 08:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep the last ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Done--Oneiros (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Detail outline of counties

Suggest a clear outline, somehow, of the countries to which the various islands, as shown in the map of the Mediterranean, "belong". Further the border of UK (ie including NI) from the Rep.of Ir could be made clear. England, Britain (Great Britain) and the UK are not clear to some. As to whether the Isle of Mann should be noted ...well....no comment!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Osborne (talk • contribs) 09:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Map

Spain, the UK and France should all be coloured green, as they are partly outside Europe (French Guiana, Canary Islands, Bermuda, etc).

Please sign your comments.

The map in the infobox colors all these countries green. So, which map are you talking about.

Which part of the UK do you believe outside Europe? Tomeasy_{T C} 06:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Origins of Western Culture

I'm not allowed to edit this page, apparently, but I'd like to note this part:

"Europe, in particular Ancient Greece, is the birthplace of Western culture.^[1]"

The part is where it says "Ancient Greece." Wouldn't it sound better if it were:

"Europe, in particular Greece, is the birthplace of Western culture."

Ancient Greece should be replaced by whatever is there current-day, in other words Greece. Ancient Greece is no longer on the map.

EDIT: I'd also like to note that on the map, Greenland is not shaded green. If I'm not mistaken, Greenland is and has been owned by Denmark for years and years. Should it be green?

CaradocTheKing (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it is usually considered American. Look, the Asian part of Russia is part of Russia, isn't it? Yet it is not in Europe and, therefore, not green. The borders of continents and states are not necessarily congruent. Otherwise, we would have some funny continents :-) Tomeasy_{T C} 16:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Population of Luxembourg

This article states: 448,569. There are actually over 500,000 inhabitants in Luxembourg http://www.lessentiel.lu/rechercher/story/10205295—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.189.77.46 (talk) 08:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

No, the article states that the population was estimated as 448,569 on 1 July 2002, and that appears correct. Presumably this old date is chosen so that reliable data for all the countries are available to make a meaningful comparison.—Emil J. 14:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Proper Place Names

In section "20th century to present", "Attack on Pearl Harbour" should be "Attack on Pearl Harbor". Tricericon (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Disregard, hit enough edits to fix it myself. Tricericon (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

To whoever reverted my edit, Pearl Harbor is a proper noun and thus should always use the American spelling. I have returned it to the correct version. Tricericon (talk) 00:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. All I saw was a 'u' being removed from a word; it's just a habit of mine to revert random regional spelling changes. Best regards, Hayden120 (talk) 01:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Map file

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.237.101.184 (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Borders of Europe

The article claims that the border goes on Caucasus mountains and then in brackets Kuma-Manych Depression. none of this descriptions are among the most acknowledged border definitions. I am editing this mistake with more specific info.

ALSO: the map of Europe leaves out parts of Azerbaijan and Georgia that are Geographically part of Europe. Please, change the map. Thnx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickniko (talk • contribs) 15:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Also the map claims that Dodecanese is in Europe! Please remove the map. --144.122.250.200 (talk) 00:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

@144.122.250.200: The Dodecanese islands are part of Greece and are therefore regarded as part of Europe (culturally if nothing else).

@Nickniko: The information in the article is based on references (aka WP:V); your claim of "acknowledged border definitions" is not.

--Fama Clamosa (talk) 07:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Clamosa, thank u for cognitive answer, but I have to respectfully disagree about some details. In Continent Introduction (part of border description) i made a link to another wikipedia Article, where enough references are provided. Furtheremore, if, according to your previous reply, The Dodecanese are supposed to be indicated on the map due to their cultural/political belonging to Greece, then it makes the map POLITICAL not Geographical, in which case it should be expanded even more including not only parts of Georgia and Azerbaijan, but also Armenia (That is Geographically Asia, Politically Europe) and is stated by several International organizations (The EU, CoE...). All the references you will find in Link described by me above. Unfortunately i am not much experienced in cartography, therefore will be betters if person with more relevance will take care of that minor issue. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickniko (talk • contribs) 10:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Biodiversity Images?

Hi, should all those images be place on the right on the Biodiversity section, it looks a bit crowded - like they're shacked up.
Thanks
--George2001hi (Discussion) 08:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I call B.S.

Europe is NOT a continent; it's a peninsula. You all are buying into a ridiculous convention established by Europeans. --68.173.110.157 (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Would you consider Africa a peninsular as well? Tomeasy_{T C} 17:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, continents are arbitrary conventions to some extent. And no, it doesn't matter. Just look at how much their number can vary from one country's textbooks to another. Since Europe is widely regarded as a continent, mentionning that concept of continent makes sense here, but arguing about continents versus peninsulas does not. No BS in here. JanvonBismarck (talk) 22:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Janvon.

What is meant with BS? Tomeasy_{T C} 08:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It usually stands for "bullshit".—Emil J. 11:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ooups, thanks for clarifying. Tomeasy_{T C} 17:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

In Kırdki (Zazaki) language: meaning of "Europe" is "sunset" and "Asia" is "Sunrise" and the "Africa" in front. Euro: today, pa: set, sink. Asia: Seem, seemed. Africa: Averda. Aver: front, averda: in front Zazaki is a first part of Kurdish language and the old language —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.163.76.248 (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Map

It would be better with a map showing the borders between the nations. 85.165.198.52 (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It's because this is the article about Europe and not about "States of Europe". Tomeasy_{T C} 22:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, EU is exactly that, a union built by different nations, just like the UN, WTO, NATO etc. Its not "one nation". 85.165.198.52 (talk) 08:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Can it be that you stranded on the wrong article? Perhaps you wanted to comment here Talk:European Union ... Tomeasy_{T C} 10:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The map showing the borders is that large image under 'Definition'. You can click on the individual states. --Boson (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Wrong oldest european hominid

It's not the 1.8 million years old from Georgia but 2 million years old "Australanthropus Olteniensis" from Romania, discovered by C.S. Nicolaescu-Plopsor. Close, very close with the georgian one. It should also be mentioned. P.S. the above map called "Cultural regions of Europe" is incorrect. The eastern/oriental and southern/meridional Carpathians are not a border for romanians, the triangle of Carpathian Mountains (Transylvania)is in fact the heart of Romania( 89.5% romanians from a population of 21.7 millions). The entire Romania is in south-eastern Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigshotnews (talk • contribs) 00:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Population & Land Area

There seems to be a major inconsistancy between the total figures given for European population and the country figures. Given that at present Russia is included in Europe and has a land area of 17m kms - it seems unlikely that European total land area is only 10m. Population figures and area figures given in the table are 26,673,064 km2, 836,398,181 people and people/km2=31.35740869 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.204.49 (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Presumably, only the European part of Russia (about 4 million km2) is included. --Boson (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"euRoPe" means "woLF"

The western eurasiatic languages (european) are based heavly on conceptual consonants (this is the reason for european "runic" alphabets-the sound/the letter unlike the asian ideogramic/logogramic ones influenced by vocalic inflections). In the name "Europe" we have 2 groups of consonants: R(L) and P(B, F, V, W). The consonant, "R" has the Repetiton role, being used in european languages to describe the Sun, characteristics of it (such as Repetition or bRoad aReas beneath the Sun). For example, my romanian word "rau" means "river"(repetition, flowing of water from an initial point to another), while the words "lac" and "loc" means "lake" and "place"(it shows the bLocking). The second consonant, "P" (sometimes replaced by consonantic group "C,G,K,H") has the role to show something similar in characteristic with water ("aPa" in romanian or "aQua" in latin means "water"), such as an eye, because an eye is made from water, it is clear/vision like the water. Therefore we have the greek word "oP" meaning "eye" or the romanian "oChi"-same translation. So, literally, "euRoPe" means "glittering eye"-"eyes like the Sun"-who are glittering in the dark, wich is the characteristic trait of a woLF. LuP/LuPo in romanian/latin means "woLF". If you replace "L" with "R" from the same consonantic group, we obtain the word "euRoPe". Also in greek we have the word "LyCo" from wich we have LyCantropy or the romanian "LiCari"(it means "to glitter" similar with "LiQuid", because the water shines/reflects LiGth). In scandinavian myhtology there is a trickster god called LoKi, who is the father of wolfs. In my romanian language, the word "RaPus" means "killed". It's made from 2 words: "Ra"(Sun) and "Pus"(put down), therefore if we take the "R" from "RaPus", we have the word "aPuS", meaning "WeSt/sunset"(the place where the Sun is killed/put down). So there is no surprise that in many languages, the particle "eReB" means "west" or "dark". Europe is the land of the wolfs with glittering eyes where the sun sets down.Bigshotnews 02:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool story bro. 190.162.27.76 (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Gevorkhagopian, 5 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} On the map of Europe change Armenia from being out of european borders to into European borders as my father has a very high position in Armenia and I have asked and researched about it and therefore I know that it is in Europe geographically, Gevorkhagopian (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

References correction

As I can't do that myself without creating an account, here's just the info. The link to "State of Europe's Forests 2007: The MCPFE report on sustainable forest management in Europe" should be changed to http://www.foresteurope.org/filestore/foresteurope/Publications/pdf/state_of_europes_forests_2007.pdf

212.79.161.210 (talk) 09:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Definition

Is there some special reason why the Benelux is not included in the definition? I think it is traditionally considered as such, so if it is excluded, at least a reason should be given. 88.159.66.26 (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You will have to be more specific. In what way do you think the Benelux countries are excluded in the article? --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Organizations accesible to the European States

Proposition: There should be a section enumerating and describing the names and purposes of ALL the various organizations which are accessible for countries (ie. the Member States) in Europe, such as the EU, EFTA, NATO, CERN, WEU, OSCE, Council of Europe, WTO, G8, G20, ITU, UN, etc, etc. From the standpoint of this article: "Europe" (not the "European Union"), the focus in such a section should lie explicitly on the several European States to clarify and compare in which organizations each of the various states (for example Britain and France) are a member, this is in contrast to looking at the various organizations (for example NATO) in order to see all countries who make up the Member States of that particular organization, or to looking at each country alone to see which organizations that particular country belongs to. It is important to have a comprehensive comparison chart of all the organizations (and their purposes) affecting the countries on the European map since each of all these organizations in the end refer to the same Member State, and ultimately, to the same taxpayer. Such comparison of the European States, and the organizations they constitute, should be clearly expressed in a table enumerating all the European countries on the leftmost column and the membership of all the organizations in the subsequent cells to the right of each country, but also be visualized in a single map with different colors depending on which (and how many) organizations each country is a member, with the EU/NATO map as a template (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EU_and_NATO.svg). Alternatively, such a section could be an article in its own right: the "European States" which would then link to both "Europe" as well as all the organizations, such as the "European Union", "NATO", etc. 83.177.143.118 (talk) 02:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Europe is not a continent

I dont think this article should be on wikipedia. Europe is not a continent and is part of Asia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.90.229 (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's part of Eurasia, I don't think anyone sees it as a part of Asia. And even so, there should be an article on it because it's a distinct, recognized geographic and cultural area even if it's not a continent. Zazaban (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I see it as part of Asia; it's Asia's largest peninsula. However, despite that, it does deserve its own article, for the reasons stated by Zazaban. 98.82.180.48 (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. However, what matters is that the vast majority of the world population that understands both the geography of Europe and the concept of continents considers Europe to be a continent. Thus, it is reasonable for this Wikipedia article to declare Europe to be a continent.68.3.203.92 (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Transcontinental countries

These have been discussed extensively in the talk archives and a consensus has long been achieved. Very occasionally and periodically this can lead to disputes on the status of Russia, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Georgia, etc. Transcontinental country has a natural ambiguity associated with it which cannot be resolved on wikipedia, where a completely neutral position is taken. The main map, its colouring, caption and footnotes reflect that neutral position. Mathsci (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing against the present wording now that you have maintained the sources. Regards.--Polgraf (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation change proposal

I suggest chaging the first pronunciation to: /jʊ^ərəp/

This way both the primary British pronunciation jʊərəp and the secondary American pronunciation jʊrəp (which can be used instead of jurəp) are represented, instead of just the former.

--TheAmericanizator (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The proper venue to discuss Wikipedia's conventions for representation of English in IPA is WT:IPA for English.—Emil J. 15:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

But I'm referring to the pronunciation for this specific article.--TheAmericanizator (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Protected for three years?

Ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.194.164 (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 41.160.19.147, 10 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Europe is not a Continent

41.160.19.147 (talk) 11:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that supports this assertion. Plenty of sources describe Europe as a continent. See also the thread at the top of this page. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 218.186.9.232, 22 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Regarding WWI and II, the article is written in a very one-sided view, from a western perspective, as the majority of english language pages are. Just to see if this will work:

- Russia did not suffer a defeat in the WWI - due to internal discontent, the country decided to withdraw from the conflict and negotiate a piece agreement with Germany. Compare that with the true defeat of Germany in WWI/II or Japan in II - very different stories;

- Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was signed after numerous months of failed negotiations between USSR and UK/France - this is not mentioned as per usual;

- To complete a full picture, next to 27 million perished Soviets, I would mention 0.9 million UK and US victims combined.

218.186.9.232 (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also, which sources are provably wrong? Thanks! — $Jeff G. ツ$ 02:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

- Regarding the Pact:

Negotiations between USSR and France/UK started on 10/04/39, and by August 39 no workable solution had been reached. As a few examples, England objected to a list of guaranteed protected countries, inclusion of the Baltic states and Finland in the list, non-possibility of a separate peace agreement. They ultimately agreed to all points, but valuable time had often been wasted.

In July UK sent Admiral Drax to Moscow - a person who did not have any powers to decide upon important issues nor commanded any respect from the Soviets. Furthermore, UK took the longest route possible, by sea, to deliberately delay and sabotage a possible positive outcome. (Source - Great Soviet Encyclopedia (GSE) "Second World War" and ru.wikipedia.org on Molotov-Ribbentrop pact).

Importantly, it was known that whilst talking to the Soviets, London (Chamberlain through Wilson) was also secretly talking to the Nazis about possible non-objection to the latter's "interests" in the Eastern and South-Eastern Europe in exchange for non-aggression. Brits were also prepared to allow Germans to exploit their colonial African possessions. (Source - GSE)

This clearly showed Stalin West was playing a double game and could not be trusted.

Following the despicable appeasement of Hitler in the case with Sudetenland, even in March Stalin was furious at 18th VKP(b) summit: "some countries, fore-mostly Britain and France, refused to collectively provide a defence against the aggressor" and was disinclined to get involved with countries that used others only for their own benefit. Hence USSR was between the rock and hard place - they chose Germany.

In summary, the statement "the Germans turned to the Soviets, and signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact..." should be complimented "...after difficult negotiations efforts between the three powers of USSR, France and Britain could not proceed due to the political unwillingness and contrasting priorities of all parties." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.9.232 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC) 218.186.9.253 (talk) 05:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Moderator/s, Re: the above Pact, I note neither my suggestion has been implemented, nor at least any acknowledgement issued in the last 2 weeks. Does this mean you only allow information that represents a biased Western view? So much for freedom of speech and any sense of honest discussion... 218.186.9.253 (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you simply propose here the sentence you want to write and indicate which sentence it ought to substitute? Tomeasy_{T C} 20:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it what I did two weeks ago - please see above. To reiterate, the statement "...the Germans turned to the Soviets, and signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact..." should be complimented "...after difficult negotiations efforts between the three powers of USSR, France and Britain could not proceed (collapsed) due to the political unwillingness and contrasting priorities of all parties." This is to provide a fuller picture and dispel an underlying misrepresentation that the Soviets colluded with Hitler out of their own will - it was simply a political inevitability after UK and France showed their cynicism and indecisiveness.

218.186.9.253 (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Your proposed change would convey a lot of judgment. This is not what an encyclopedia is about, and personally I reject your proposal on the basis of WP:POV. E.g., "difficult negotiation efforts" or "political unwillingness" or "priorities of all parties". These are all your opinions, and rather difficult to be proven as facts. Tomeasy_{T C} 19:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It's true, "political unwillingness" is but an expression, perhaps just my opinion. Factually, it would have been truer to write of the collapse in negotiations due to secret negotiations of Western powers behind Stalin's back whilst smiling to his face...didn't want to ruffle feathers too much. Of course, "...Germany annexed the Sudetenland. This move was HIGHLY contested by the other powers" sounds very factual and accurate. Don't publish the truth...No wonder some choose to re-write the history and/or exclusively present it in a self-suited way...They have good educators... 218.186.9.253 (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

This comes down to one question. Can you verify your opinion to be true. No sources no change. We can't risk any original research. Defianetly on something like this. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC) As per Wikipedia rules, pure facts, indisputable and verifiable: Please add to the statement "...the Germans turned to the Soviets, and signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact..." the following: "...after 4 months of discussions between the three powers of USSR, France and Britain on dealing with Nazi Germany in Europe, had not proven to be successful." (Sources - Great Soviet Encyclopedia and ru.wikipedia.org). This would remove any implied half-truths and at least make two versions of wiki (ru and en) comparable. 218.186.9.253 (talk) 06:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC) Well, this is why in Nov last year I started by saying "just to see if this will work"...as the selectiveness of resources by Western researchers and skewed mis/presentation of debatable events is evident at every step. Even at this "local" level, you, so-called moderators, have tried every trick in the book - referred to 'no sources' when the presented evidence was abundantly clear, didn't introduce a comment that states an indisputable fact, simply ignored my messages for weeks and now resorted to blocking my IP without any reason...Commendable, "unbiased truth" distributors! Keep contributing to the cynicism in the world... Victorzim (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, duh. It's widely known that Wikipedia is a power trip for moderators, administrators and so called "veteran users". When they disagree with something, they just reject it. Classic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.37.146 (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

During the Cold War

The sentences 'During the Cold War, Europe was divided along the Iron Curtain between NATO in the west and the Warsaw Pact in the east' (lead) and 'After World War II the map of Europe was redrawn at the Yalta Conference and divided into two blocs, the Western countries and the communist Eastern bloc, separated by what was later called by Winston Churchill an "iron curtain"' imply a complete partition. They do not account for the neutral countries. 212.183.140.19 (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Having grown up in the US during the 1970s and '80s, I can tell you that there was no distinction made by my teachers between Warsaw Pact countries and non-Warsaw Pact communist countries. Nor was there any great distinction drawn between NATO countries and non-NATO capitalist countries. Switzerland was seen as Western European ('us') while Yugoslavia was seen as Eastern European ('them'), there was no recognition of a neutral stance. At least that's the way it was presented to me. --Khajidha (talk) 12:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

edit request

I was thinking of adding information on Warsaw Confederation from January 28, 1573, as it was in fact the first document providing the citizens total religious freedom. The document was included by UNESCO in Memory of the World Programme (also called World Documentary Heritage). I believe that such important event should be mentioned in the article about Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.99.14.6 (talk) 09:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

And, of course, Constitution of May 3, signed in 1791, as the first modern European Constitution should be included as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.99.14.6 (talk) 09:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add something on this article, actually remove a mistake... Northern Cyprus is not a country, no other nation in the world (excluding Turkey) recognizes Northern Cyprus as a country, so this mistake shouldn't even exist in Wikipedia. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.110.254.217 (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Image bloat

The image bloat is horrible. In the section Definition there are three images side by side, at left "the Historical Europe-Asia boundaries", in the middle the "Clickable map of Europe" and at right "Europa regina map". ~~I think the half number of the current images are justified, the rest can go.~~ Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 15:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to shrink the image texts. Maybe most of the images are informative after all. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 15:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Recent blanking of maps

Disruption to article by sockpuppet of indefinitely banned user User:Satt 2

When maps have been in the article for a long time and where a consensus has been painstakingly developed, one editor should not unilaterally blank them, That was true in particular of the prinicpal clickable map, which is the result of many days of discussion over several years. Mathsci (talk) 05:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your edit and removed another map authored by Dbachmann because it is unsourced.I would like to do the same thing about the clickable map because one's idea of "common definition" may not be that of another. Moreover, I just looked at the National Geographic definition (which the map claims to be based on)- NG Student Handbook pg 93/Asia - and it seems that the European parts of the Caucasus are at least twice as large as they are on this map. So I'm not sure why NG is being used as a source, clearly that must have mixed it up with something else.--Mschwerin (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

@Mschwerin: You may have some valid arguments against these maps, and make your case here for deleting them eventually. Nevertheless, Mathsci is right that this content was introduced by consensus after long discussions, which also manifests in the fact that they are standing for a very long time now. This means, the status quo has to prevail on the article until the discussion here comes to a conclusion, see WP:BRD. Mathsci has already hinted you on this. The fact that you reverted after this notice does not make your case stronger. If you continue like this, you may soon be identified as vandal. So, please take my advice, leave the article as is, and discuss your proposals here until we reach consensus. Tomeasy_{T C} 07:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Mscherin should not be labelled as a vandal. A disruptive editor maybe, but not a vandal. As for his point, I think he is noting that at the moment there truly are far too many images in this article. The MOS notes that no text should be sandwiched between two images, yet in this article, especially in History and Geography, pictures line both sides of the text. Some need to be removed. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey Chip, I did not call Mschwerin a vandal. Rather I explained a bit how BRD is to be understood, and that any further reverts on the main page in order to deviate from status quo before such a deviation has achieved consensus here could then be considered as vandalism.

The case becomes critical only now, after citing and explaining BRD to Mschwerin, and Mschwerin reverting again. I understand well the argument why they want to remove the map, but as long as people want to have the article as it was for very long, the version must stand while arguments are exchanged on talk. Mschwerin has unfortunately shown today that they do not understand or do not want to acknowledge this concept of Wikipedia editing. This should be a conern to you, Chip, too now. I guess you would do better to try to convince Mschwerin about the proper conduct in such cases, which we have here every day and should be able to handle without revert warring on the main page. Tomeasy_{T C} 17:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)::

Tomeasy, I understood the consensus argument regarding the clickable map - that is why I did not revert mathsci on that - but I cannot find any consensus on Dbachmann's map down below which you have restored. The fact is that his map is not based on any particular source and in many regards restates what other maps are saying; this should be enough of a reason to clean this mess. I am glad that he discovered passion for cartography but this is not his exhibit.--Mschwerin (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

That map has never been discussed. Dbachmann is a reliable and long-term editor; I have no reason to doubt that particular map. It is quite informative and it does not directly duplicate other maps. Mathsci (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

@Mschwerin, you did the right thing when you deleted the map in the first place because you in your eyes it was original research. But now, you have learnd that someone opposes this deletion and reverted you, which was also fine. As a matter of fact, the map was used for quite some time without being disputed. So, if you want it to go away, you will have to convince people here first. Please read BRD, cited above, to understand that during the discussion process status quo should prevail. If you have questions or comments regarding this Wikipedia policy, please feel free to ask. However, do not keep revert warring on the main page. This would, indeed Chipmunkdavis, be interpreted as vandalsim, because it would be a persistent and intentional violation of a Wikipedia policy. Tomeasy_{T C} 18:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Well Tomeasy, I disagree with your definition of vandalism, but I think we can both agree it's bad. Anyway, @Mschwerin, even though I agree with you in principle, Stop removing maps until you have the explicit agreement of other editors on this talk page. There, that's stated now, please present a case for the maps you want to remove. Simple I think map X should be removed because of Y. I believe that Dbachmann has created his maps based off reliable sources (indeed, he went on a spree of removing unsourced maps himself), but you'd best ask them yourself if you're still unsure. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Chip. @Mschwerin, I presume your major problem with this map is the unique definition of a border between Europe and Asia, whereas the clear location of this border is often disputed. Tomeasy_{T C} 19:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure why DBachmann's standing on wikipedia should be an excuse for not providing evidence. There are many other respectable editors who may not agree, should they all go and create maps of their own because they have a good reputation? And FYI, Dbachmann's map was not here for quite some time. He merely replaced the old unsourced map 2/3 weeks ago with his own unsourced map; now tell me, what was the point of doing that if both are OR? This seems like an attempt to push a single point of view and that is why I am in favor of providing a survey of maps down below so that readers may look at them and draw conclusions themselves.--Mschwerin (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If you're talking about File:Europe Asia transcontinental.png then I personally assure you it is based on sources. It follows the Ural Mountain, Ural River, and Caucasus Mountains, which if you search you will find is the most commonly accepted border. Dbachmann has sources for this, not to worry. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If so, then these sources could be added to the file description. Would this satisfy you, Mschwerin? Tomeasy_{T C} 07:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Even if the map is furnished with sources, one question must still be answered: What is the use of having two maps on this page if they display the same border definition? Clearly, the smaller map does not differ from the clickable map in any way other than having Asian extensions of countries colored. The previous map was there because it was an alternative definition but now that it is removed I see no need to include more of the same. So you see, we go back to the question of crowding. *I think the smaller map can stay only if the clickable map loses coloring and displays only names.* That way Wikipedia will not attempt to decide what has not been decided for centuries.--Mschwerin (talk) 04:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The clickable principal map is the result of long discussions. There is no consensus whatsoever to change it. Mschwerin should read this page and its archives as well as the talk page of Template:Europe and Sea for discussions of transcontinental country. There seems to be no point in repeating those discussions, since the issues have been resolved in detail in the article. One indefinitely blocked user Polgraf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), using the alternative accounts Satt 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and ComtesseDeMingrelie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), also indefinitely blocked, has periodically raised the question of continental boundaries. Mathsci (talk) 05:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

There is an argument to be made that perhaps it does not relate to political geography as such, but the same could be made for the UN and CIA maps, which just divide up the countries in a manner probably unrelated to politics. I agree with Mathsci, the clickable map is not going anywhere, it's quite useful. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The clickable map may be useful but it should not be colored the way it is. There is no reason why that particular definition should be used on the main map and not some other. The argument that it is the most common definition does not make any difference; this is not a source competition and I am not going to start counting what Nat. Geo, CIA, Council of Europe etc. think is Europe. The border issue won't be resolved on this page, or any other for that matter. This is why I propose that the map either lose its color or be relegated to the rest of the maps down below, where there is no implication whatsoever that wikipedia endorses this particular point of view. (Having it in its size in the beginning of the article is just that in all but name).--Mschwerin (talk) 05:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

These issues have already been discussed multiple times, resolved and taken care of in the article, with careful sourcing. There seems to be no merit in any of your suggestions. Mathsci (talk) 06:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not see anything in discussions that says that wikipedia has agreed to be an arbiter and determine where the continental borders go; this is neither its responsibility nor a reasonable expectation. Sadly, I think that what this page displays is an attempt to solve a problem that will unlikely be solved once and for all unless there is an ad hoc international agreement. This being said, I think my suggestions have merit. "careful sourcing", in case you did not read my above post, makes absolutely no difference because, as I said, this is not a reference competition and it is not wikipedia's prerogative to determine anything, only present what is already out there in a neutral manner. I do not see why you are all so against letting the readers determine where the borders are by simply providing a survey of maps, all of equal size, placement, and importance. --Mschwerin (talk) 06:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, your contributions are becoming disruptive. I suspect that you are probably a sockpuppet of a banned user.[1] Mathsci (talk) 07:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Now Mschwerin appears to be editing disruptively by repeatedly blanking the maps. Not good. Mathsci (talk) 07:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Formatting changes indeed ;) I contacted one of the admins who previously dealt with the situation to assess. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Reported on WP:AN3 here after 5 reverts. Mathsci (talk) 08:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Now indefinitely bocked as sockpuppet of Satt 2. Mathsci (talk) 12:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Definition/Geography and Extent

As it stands, there is a pointless overlap between the two. I suggest redefining the geography section to simply Geography, and move all extent information up to the definition section. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Mathsci (talk) 07:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Europe is secular

First of all, Europe specifically excludes the United States.

Also, Europe is primarily secular. Hare Krishna, Christianity and Scientology are a Johnny come lately fad in Europe. There are religions that are more European and have therefore been around much longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.40.45.183 (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Newly added table on provinces, etc, in Political geography

A new table was added by ClungeLover69 (talk · contribs) to the Political geography section. Since it seemed to be largely unsourced WP:OR, I reverted it to allow for discussion here per WP:BRD. I didn't look at each entry in detail; however, I could see no particular reason for including Bavaria, Brittany or for placing a French flag next to Catalonia. The table seemed to be potentially contentious. Its inclusion would just create instability because of the lack of sources and the arbitrariness of the entries. Mathsci (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree, the list added had too many issues as it was introduced. Moreover, I cannot imagine that it will possible at all to agree on universal criteria for in- and exclusion of items on this list. Tomeasy_{T C} 20:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Arbitrary inclusion criteria, with no apparent solution. I was surpised when it popped up.DLinth (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Land use map

The land use map seems completely wrong. According to this map, there is almost no forest in mainland Europe while Scandinavia is almost 100% forested. The description of the meaning of colours is incoplete. Markoeltermann (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It's all correct. Mainland Europe has few contiguous forest areas left that are large enough to show. Scandinavia is shown as mostly forested (true), with, as you head NW toward the oceans, first a strip of mostly pasture land and then a strip of tundra-bogs. You are correct....that last category was omitted from the caption; just added it back in.DLinth (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Greenland is in Europe

Greenland is in Europe. It stands tall against cocacolonization and will never surrender to the United States occupying forces. It stands alongside Denmark and others as a European country. It is the diamond on Europe's crown. United States Zero. It is official. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.167.68.107 (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Greenland is a danish oversees territory and it is a part of the North American continent. Grennland is not a European terrotiry as Reunion is not a Europena territory, it belongs to France but it lies in Africa. Turkey is an Asian COuntry wich lies only in a small part in Europe, which doesn't make Turkey a European country, Turkey must be deleted from any European list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.251.8 (talk) 04:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

countries not entirely in Europe

I agree with: Russia; Georgia; Turkey; Kazakhstan; Azerbaijan. But what about France and Spain? Brownturkey (talk) 19:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

If this is in regards to the maps in political geography, the ones coloured are coloured due to the fact that somehow a line is drawn through them artificially separating them between Europe and Asia. The border between Asia and Europe isn't based on any geographic reasoning, and these countries are often found in lists of European and Asian countries. Spain and France, with the vast bulk of their territory firmly in Europe, including major political and demographic centres, have territories that are outside of Europe, but clearly separated (and so the border is not blurred). I have yet to see France or Spain pop up in a general RS list of South American or African countries anyway. If you see one, please inform me! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

France is listedon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_America Brownturkey (talk) 06:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, we can't cite wikipedia. Anyway, the whole point of the map is to give credence to all definitions of Europe. Although there is a predominant view of what the border between Europe and Asia is (the one shown by the white/grey contrast on the map) it is not exactly clear cut. Thus for countries which cross that undefined border between Europe and Asia, the font is blue to hopefully enlighten the reader of this. Colouring France, Spain, the Netherlands, and Denmark in blue two would most likely simply confuse the reader, as they would be wondering where on that map they cross a border. In the end there's only so much a map can do without accompanying text, which is why we have the Boundaries between continents and List of transcontinental countries to explain further in addition to the definition section on this page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

"The border between Asia and Europe isn't based on any geographic reasoning". You can't really say that. Geographical features are used to draw the border, they are just not uniquely defined in some areas.

Otherwise, I agree with Chipmunkdavis' argumentation for not including Spain and France in this list at the moment. I see that technically, it would be correct to include them. The Gibraltar straight is a well-known, unique geographical border, and Spain has territories across it. So, I would not exclude this option for all times. However, I think we should not be the first ones here on Wikipedia to proof a point, if it is not proven elsewhere. Finding evidence of the kind that Chip has mentioned (e.g., Spain appears in a list on African countries) would be a good starting point to give momentum here.

As an aside, the Azerbaijan presenter at the Eurovision Song Contest hailed, according to herself (!), from Asia, which was a very big surprise for me. Tomeasy_{T C} 04:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the existing note about France having politically integrated overseas territories is sufficient. I suppose a similar note could be provided for the map, though I don't personally think it is necessary. As for Spain, I'm not sure that Ceuta and Melilla can be counted as part of Spain (since 1995), even if they are Spanish territory. --Boson (talk) 09:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Ceuta and Melilla are full parts of Spain, as are the Canary Islands and the Plazas de soberanía. Although not part of an autonomous community, they're a full part of the state. Even the parts of France that are not under full metropolitan law are noted as integral parts of the French Republic by the French government and constitution. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Border between Europe and Asia lies acros the Bosforo Strait. So Turkey is partially in Europe, which means Turkey is not a European Country, only the marginal area of that country must be considered European, reporting over 70000000 of people as european is complitely fake. Turkey must be deleted from any european list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.251.8 (talk) 04:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is stated in the footnote to the table. Feel free to obtain the figures for the European and non-European parts of Turkey and present them here for discussion. --Boson (talk) 11:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

TURKEY IS NOT A EUROPEAN COUNTRY: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_east EUROPE IS NOT MIDDLE EAST. TURKEY MUST DELETED FROM THE ARTICLE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.105.115 (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Part of Turkey (East Thrace) lies in Europe, including Istanbul. Subtropical-man (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Sub tropical, your name just show your knoledge and concern to Europe: Part of France lies in Africa, South America, Asia, Oceania well France is a South American, Asian, African, Oceanian country an not a European country if Turkey is European. Reunion lies in Africa, French Guayana lies in South America, New Caledonia lies in Oceania. SO FRANCE IS NOT EUROPEAN COUNTRY AS TURKEY IS EUROPEAN!!!!THIS IS JUST RIDICULOUS, ISN'T IT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.251.8 (talk) 03:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Population of European Turkey: 71,517,100, Area :783,562 km²?????????????? Turkey is not Europe. EUROPE IS NOT TURKEY. WHERE WERE YOU WHEN THEY HANDLED BRAINS?WERE AT THE TOILET?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_population this article in Wikipedia shows that European Turkish population is just about 10000000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.251.8 (talk) 04:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Turkey>Turkey is NOT Europe, only that small part lies in Europe which doesn't make the whole Turkey part of Europe thus it must be deleted from any european list as you can't find France in any African list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.251.8 (talk) 04:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Prehistory ?

Why is Newgrange, built 3,100 BC, not listed in this section? Is it not a great monument like Stonehenge or Megalithic Temple of Malta?--Ire2500 (talk) 07:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Culture Section

The culture section is painfully amateurish. I understand and agree with wanting to express the extraordinary impact European culture has had on the rest of the world but talking about Christianity stabilised it? Try built more than half of it and protected and guided it through the enlightenment when 99% of Europeans were still extremely Christian, as in went to church more in a month than most of us do in a lifetime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.27.225 (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Chechnya

I am aware that it is very much disputed which countries are included in Europe. But I do think that for the sake of consistency the map shown at the very beginning of this article should conform with the information provided in the text. So either the map should be changed or Chechnya should be included in the list of European countries. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is not whether it's geographically in Europe or not; from what I understand Chechnya is part of (European) Russia and not a separate country at the moment. (European) Russia is made up of a lot of different territories, and these cannot be designated separately on the clickable map. The data was added by an editor who is probably someone who from his edits to wikipedia so far, all of which have been reverted (eg [2]), appears to be pushing a Chechen nationalist point of view. That seems to be the way things are at the moment, unless I've made a mistake. Mathsci (talk) 23:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah. I see. That does indeed make sense. I actually thought Chechnya was an independent country with a Russian puppet government, but after reading the article I can see now it is de facto a federal subject of Russia. So I hereby retract my objection. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem :) Mathsci (talk) 00:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 118.93.209.184, 8 August 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the religion section, please removed the (east) from Germany (east). Germany is not divided anymore.

118.93.209.184 (talk) 07:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Decline. By no means does the statement imply that Germany is still divided. It merely clarifies the territory to which the claim made applies. The claim does not apply to Germany as a whole, and therefore the qualifier cannot be removed. Tomeasy_{T C} 17:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Map is ridiculous

Why does the map in the infobox have no borders? I find that very weird. Is there a reason for that? Jørgen88 (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Because the map in the infobox is meant to show where Europe is, and a map of that size could not show borders and countries sensibly. The map showing borders and country names is further down. --Boson (talk) 18:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

With borders it makes more sense, without borders its just a green spot on the globe. Jørgen88 (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what the borders add with no country names. Ít would just tell you that Europe is divided into several bits, which we know anyway.--Boson (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. The whole point of the EU is that we all club together like one big band of brothers, not squabbling over our boundaries so that we can compete with others such as the USA, China and Russia. On the global locator maps it certainly makes more sense to have it as a big EuroBlob. The second map does indeed have the country boundaries and would be silly to repeat that. And yes, some of the other locator maps do not follow the same style, but they do not have countries as small as the Vatican City, Monaco, Gibraltar, San Marino, Guernsey, Jersey, Liechtenstein, Malta, Andorra, and the Isle of Man. Chaosdruid (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Please do try to soapbox less. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Who are you talking to Saddhiyama? Chaosdruid (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Raffael 058.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Raffael 058.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Turkey is not Europe

Turkey is not Europe and any references must be deleted from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.33.251.173 (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Newgrange

Still no answer on why it is not listed, someone simply deleted my comment --Ire2500 (talk) 13:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Revision

Reading the article I found much incorrect information.

Some of sentences use vague term Western and Eastern Europe which we used during the cold war and now have as many definitions as many there are scholars. This goes to a ridiculous idea that a wolf is primarily found in Eastern Europe and in the Balkans, with a handful of packs in pockets of Western Europe (Scandinavia, Spain, etc.).extenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Present_distribution_of_wolf_subspecies_eur.jpg. This can be changed with short 'Northern Europe and mountainous regions of the continent' which reflects it better. Even more hilarious is the European bison part: 'Once roaming the great temperate forests of Eurasia, European bison now live in nature preserves in Poland, Russia, and other parts of Eastern Europe]]' -> in fact it does in these areas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bison_bonasus_distribution.svg. This means that the information was clearly incorrect because these reserves are very limited in terms of size and they are on the border of Poland and Belarus, and Poland and the Ukraine, regions tending to be called Central rather than Eastern Europe after the Cold War not to mention unspecified 'Eastern Europe'. Consequently I decided to correct it.

Keeping in mind size of Europe, I thought it will be wiser to specify information so instead of using 'Central, Eastern, North-Western etc. I changed it into specific places in order to avoid confusion and disappointment. So instead of saying Western Europe, whatever that term covers, I specified countries by name to make it much clearer, comprehensible and visible. --Rejedef (talk) 15:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that kind of rewriting is in any way helpful. In this case attempts at "precision" are just confusing, particularly if they only refer to captions of images. Eastern, Northern, Southern, Western or Central Europe are not confusing terms. Mathsci (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mathsci - they are confusing terms because they have different meanings. You can see Western Europe as a bunch of non-communist countries... 22 years ago. CIA would say that Western Europe are France, the UK and the Low Countries. This is the confusion I make. And, after all, Europe is too small to separate it into regions. On the other hand, European nations tend to find differences rather than similarities between them. Instead of saying about regions, some of them are great, why not to specify, where possible, to make clear which country rather than telling that European Bison can be found in a region of Europe rather than mentioning that there are only 2 very tiny reserves in countries which we call nowadays Central (alternatively Central and Eastern Europe)? That was my motive to pursue changes. --Rejedef (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The terms are mostly understandable, which is what we want. Your latest edit was better than your Central-Western-Northern-Southern and Central-Eastern-Northern Europe edit, but I do think you should have waited for a discussion with Mathsci before proceeding. Would you like to explain each terminological change? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I did explain my position and, it is not a personal view. It is just an observer view, as I live in Europe and I see how terms are being used in media, books, politics and in scholarly papers. To prove my point I searched for tens of links --Rejedef (talk) 23:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I still find these edits unhelpful, so I have reverted them. Rejdef seems to be pushing a very personal point of view: the assertion that Europe is too small to be divided into regions is not backed by reliable sources and is standard usage. The CIA's handbook has been updated. I have no idea what it said prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall, or why that should be relevant. The current version, available on the web, is the one that is used as a source for various parts of the article. When talking about animals from prehistory, as in the image captions (those images and their captions are a little quirky and possibly we don't need either of them), geographical regions do make sense and should be adopted on wikipedia if used by the sources. (Anything else is original research.) There is an article on Western Europe, which includes the 2011 classification by the United Nations (please see the image). The terms are often used in a vaguer sense. Mathsci (talk) 00:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Rejedef used my user talk page to continue this discussion. Please could we keep discussions about the article on this talk page? As Chipmunkdavis has written on my talk page, I think that each separate change (there were several in quite different places) should be carefully justified—one-by-one, not as a package—with a realiable source in English that uses the same phraseology. When there are tricky points, the best thing is return to the sources; any general discussion is usually not appropriate. Mathsci (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I did not make these sources. I'm not an owner of BBC or a boss of the European Union. Please check links below to see how the European perspective may very from an American perspective. By Europe is too small to divide I mean the President of the Europe, Jerzy Buzek's views. The fall of communism is significant because it challenged the East-West divide. New sub-divisions emerged and many old ones were revived. This is why it is relevant. It also enabled the European Union, the most important international organisation in Europe, to grow. Alss, European Bison is not an animal from prehistory as it is not extinct. Wee can agree in disagree that there was a sub-divvision of Europe suggested by the United nations but it isschallenged in Europe itself. I gave you resources to check it, if you don't trust me or you believe that you are right. --Rejedef (talk) 23:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Edits by Rejedef

I was quite happy with this edit by Rejedef (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [3]. Without any explanation, Rejedef very recently decided to revert his own edit. As I have written before, if Rejedef has decided that "Eastern Europe" or "Western Europe", etc, are not valid terms in sources, he will probably be topic-banned from a large range of articles on wikipedia under WP:AE. Mathsci (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

? I revised the article changing its vaguely defined terms which are used in a different way or omitted. Instead, I gave more specific information. I also quoted tens of resources: academic, political and medial. If you see any error in my edits, please change parts you do not like. Please, do not revert everything. Also, please prove why you think my edits are wrong. --Rejedef (talk) 02:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Why shall we name countries instead of whole regions when writing about Europe

European Subdivision is a very vague topic: Eastern, Western, Central Europe change meanings quite relatively. This has to deal with many reasons. At the end these divisions are vague. Between the 1945-1990 it was relatively easy, still Turkey, Greece, Cyprus and Malta were confusing but we had Western and Eastern Europe for some time. Nowadays subdivisions very that much: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Europe (at least 5 similar definitions); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Europe (again, at least 5 different definitions) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Europe (at least 5 different definitions) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Europe (at least 5 different definitions) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Europe (at least 5 different definitions) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Europe (at least 2 definitions) As you see, all of them are context dependent. It doesn't help that there are also old subdivisions (which we tend to bring back to life as they reflect the continent's complexity more): http://fc00.deviantart.com/fs42/f/2009/122/f/7/Europe_Division_by_JJohnson1701.png; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Central_Europe,_814.jpg; http://historyoftheancientworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/17th-century-map-of-Europe.jpg Although this model (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Grossgliederung_Europas-en.svg) is pursued much in media: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/country_profiles/1035212.stm (see Switzerland as a part of Central Europe and compare to other countries); http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2002/aug/26/naturaldisasters.climatechange; and European Institutions: http://www.ceinet.org/; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_European_Initiative and Un institutions: http://www.grid.unep.ch/product/map/index.php Nowadays there are Unitarian tendencies in Europe: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0020-2754.2000.00409.x/abstract As a European I can tell you that geographical adjective has a derogatory meaning, like Eastern Europe, hence it tends to be not used, especially after the Fall of Communism in the continent. In addition to all that we have the Western Civilisation concept: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Clash_of_Civilizations_map.png As well as religions (yet influential to some extent): http://westciv2.umwblogs.org/files/2010/01/Europe_religion_map_en6-1024x833.png Now I hope you will not delete my revisions. I hope I explained well my position :) As you can see, the Fall of Communism brought not only new opportunities butt also re-discovery to Europeans after 45 years of separation. Of course I understand that outside Europe you use old sub-divisions, even these Cold war ones.

At glance: -there are no clearly defined regions in Europe: all of them may vary a lot; -naming a country helps to avoid misunderstandings and over-interpretation --Rejedef (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If you are claiming that we can't use the phrase "Eastern Europe" in this article, I suspect that you might find that you could be subject to ArbCom restrictions which apply to contentious edits made in articles related to Eastern Europe. At the moment you have edited warred (3 reverts) and used this page as a SOAPBOX, citing blogs and news articles. You have mentioned a series of other wikipedia articles that apparently you do not like. You have not justified your edits using reliable sources, in this case books or academic articles. You have not responded to the requests of Chipmunkdavis and me. Please could you do so? This is a top level article which at the moment you are editing in a disruptive and contentious way. Mathsci (talk) 02:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree: SOAPBOX is not a case here as it neither of those: -Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment -Opinion pieces -Scandal mongering -Self-promotion -Advertising. --Rejedef (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

These are resources for which you asked.

Number 1. European Bison habitat: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2011.00849.x/full http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/2814/0/full http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/2814/0/rangemap

Number 2. Europe new subdivision in use: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LHm1BSGiudAC&pg=PT127&dq=europe+regions+central+northern+europe&hl=en&ei=wgCwTtCtHsiA8wOq653FAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=europe%20regions%20central%20northern%20europe&f=false http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=o48LPwiQkzIC&oi=fnd&pg=PP11&dq=europe+regions&ots=xxgLcz2eEf&sig=zk-5IA-T7ivZVlKgqki53n8zyi4#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1Tk5O1G7tWcC&pg=PA1&dq=europe+regions+central+northern+europe&hl=en&ei=wgCwTtCtHsiA8wOq653FAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CEMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=europe%20regions%20central%20northern%20europe&f=false http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_BW0Ehau6oMC&pg=PA36&dq=europe+regions+central+northern+europe&hl=en&ei=wgCwTtCtHsiA8wOq653FAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=x4gbSgAACAAJ&dq=europe+regions+central+northern+europe&hl=en&ei=wgCwTtCtHsiA8wOq653FAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA http://www.springerlink.com/content/l722418262211497/ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2011.01730.x/full http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=6301140&jid=RIS&volumeId=20&issueId=01&aid=6301132 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-0327.00018/abstract http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168192301002337

Please also see to have an insight into problems with defining regions itself by numberous scholars: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uZBhwij5Y24C&printsec=frontcover&dq=defining+regions+europe&hl=en&ei=vQKwTqnVBYrh8AOcudiuAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-0491.00200/abstract http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09595237400185111 http://publius.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/4/141.short http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=y-1fwix23zMC&pg=PA5&dq=defining+regions+europe&hl=en&ei=vQKwTqnVBYrh8AOcudiuAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Central%20Europe&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rejedef (talk • contribs) 14:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposing deletion of eastern, western, central,

1. They are obsolete: Western-Eastern divide goes back to the cold war which finished by 1993. Using them in modern Europe is confusing and even offensive in post-communist countries.

2. Their definitions are very vague and very highly depending on a source: CIA defines European Regions differently than UNESCO (just one continent), the World Bank (one continent+Central Asia), the UN or even the BBC. Not to mention the region of Central Europe defined by the Central European Initiative. (Drake, Miriam A. (2005) Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science, CRC Press)

3. Using names of countries rather than whole region will make the article better in terms of quality because.

4. Using western and eastern terms is neglecting the diversity of great individualism of European countries and their cultural differences putting them into one, rather confusing basket: the UK and Sweden are in Northern Europe but Sweden is an ethnically homogeneous country while the UK is a melting spot; Romania and Bulgaria are in south eastern Europe but Romania speaks a Romance language while Bulgaria speaks a Slavonic language. France and the Netherlands are in Western Europe but France speaks a Romance language and is a Catholic country while the Netherlands is a predominantly protestant and speaking a Germanic language. Latvia and Russia are considered to be eastern European but Latvia speaks a Baltic language and is protestant and Russia speaks many languages, mainly the Slavonic Russian and is Orthodox.

5. Using regional terms we also fall into confusion: without specifying a country we may think that it is really about one region. Usually it is one or two countries declining and others in the region begun increase their power as power in Europe was always very fluid.

6. In his book 'Europe, a Political Profile [2 Volumes]: An American Companion to European Politics'http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=V1uzkNq8xfIC&oi=fnd&pg=PP2&dq=political+subdivision+europe&ots=_Lj0Nu59s6&sig=frYx0LKN03SVlm2SFByVmmFdv9E#v=onepage&q=central%20europe&f=false Hans Slomp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rejedef (talk • contribs) 04:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Rejedef, your edits to this article now appear to have become non-neutral, unbalanced and essay-like, with POV-pushing from a very personal perspective. If you continue making edits of this kind, using this talk page as some kind of WP:FORUM or WP:SOAPBOX to veto the use of terms like Eastern Europe, a request for arbitration enforcement under WP:DIGWUREN will be made, which could restrict your editing on this article, related articles and their talk pages. Mathsci (talk) 07:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's goal to have a neutral stand. And my edits are neutral because they are specific. If you do not agree, please prove it. Essay like? I would expect to be serious but if you want to have incorrect or misleading information there, please go ahead but do not delete things without discussing them first. I understand adjectives but they are purely alleged, Mathsci. Please prove them. --Rejedef (talk) 12:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Avoidance of world like "eastern" and "western" doesn't seem neutral to me. Why should we conceal, for instance, that the "Iron Curtain" ran roughly north-south with the Communist bloc on the east, not on the west?

Since your change was reverted, the onus is on you to establish consensus before substantially restoring your edit. Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is the way to go. Continually restoring your version against consensus is not constructive. --Boson (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Recent additions

Two editors, Rejedef and Lguipontes, recently made changes which very much skewed the article. The extensive introduction of material on ethnic groups of Europe in one edit by Lguipontes seemed undue; extra material on Portuguese colonization could be added if properly sourced. The new section on human rights seemed quite unbalanced and appeared to be written from a Polish perspective. There is already an article Human rights in Europe, which is anodyne and neutral. If any material is warranted in this article on that topic, it would normally not be expected to diverge significantly from what can be found in the main article (although that article could not be used as a source). Cherrypicking sentences from sources to add WP:UNDUE content is not the way to write a wikipedia article. Personally I don't see the need for a section on human rights. Mathsci (talk) 06:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, WP:UNDUE seems to be very much an issue here. I think people forget that this is an encyclopedia article, as such it is meant to provide the reader with a general introduction to Europe, not go into details. Particularly if they are POV-ish or poorly sourced. Athenean (talk) 07:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand that you feel like Wikipedia bosses and sheriffs of an article. Good luck with that. Wikipedia is supposed to be a free Encyclopedia, by the way. --Rejedef (talk) 12:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You're reading it for free aren't you? We've told you, propose each change here individually. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Which I did and for a reason it is all wrong. If you are unhappy with its form, please change it so it is acceptable for the article 'management' --Rejedef (talk) 12:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You didn't, you proposed your idea. A change to the text should be something like "I want to chance <current text> to <your text> because of <your reason>" Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

This article is amongst the 200 most read articles on wikipedia. Objecting multiple times to uncontroversial and universally accepted terms like Eastern Europe is a non-starter. Casting aspersions about other editors is also poor form. If you continue adding unhelpful comments like this to this talk page, they can simply be collapsed or removed per WP:TPG. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the changes of Lguipontes, if sources are given, there are no objections to adding details of Spanish and Portugese colonization of South America. However, I think the statements on specific ethnic groups in Asia, including Israel, are WP:UNDUE with too much unsourced and arbitrary detail for a general article. (Do islands in the Caribbean need to be mentioned?) Mathsci (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for my lack of manners, hello. "Do islands in the Caribbean need to be mentioned?" Huh? There are more people in Cuba, Puerto Rica and Costa Rica than in Uruguay. If it gives a sequence of countries where there is an European-descendant majority, looks perfectly reasonable to do not cite a country like the Falklands or St. Pierre et Miquelon and all you can find about the Lesser Antilles (or a wide series of the locals where you can find little minorities of Eurasian creole peoples), but the places cited here are all 3.500.000~+ in population (and an exception in the Americas apart of USA, Canada, Southern Cone and Brazil). The Israel was going to be changed too, since Sephardim are of European origin too. Israel is largely mentionable in this article because there is some murmurs about its integration in the EU (and supported by Silvio Berlusconi!) and already has its place in "European integration", as does the South Caucasus, Kazakhstan and Turkey. Also, its plurality where Ashkenazi Jews are the largest group play an important role in the foreign relations of the country. And I just was going to mention (before the reverts) how groups in Central and Northern Asia are displaced because they are not a majority but a plurality there, and "European Siberians" were mentioned here way before I started editing. Arguments about arbitrary detail when it resumes in just one paragraph and unsourced when it is available data all over Wikipedia's related articles? This is not very much easy-going, mate. Furthermore, why reverting edits instead of putting sources about it if the former editor was not the only one with that certain idea about the article's content? Lguipontes (talk) 07:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It's best to avoid any discussions of Ethnic groups of Europe, particularly if you are creating the content without using sources (statements about Ashkenazi Jews). There are too many islands in the Caribbean to make any useful statement in the article. It would be too much detail. If you want to have any discussion of new content on this topic, please provide sources which can be concisely summarised. Other wikipedia articles are not normally used as sources, although they can of course provide guidance. By all means add short sourced statements about Spanish, Portugese and other European colonisation of the Americas (although bear in mind that it is already mentioned in the history section). The first step is to locate relevant sources. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Europeanness of the Jews is seen as controversial, I really never thought about it. No mention to Israel.

"Today, large populations of European descent are found on every continent, specially in what is known as the "New World". European ancestry predominates in the Americas, predominantly North America, but also to a lesser degree in the West Indies and South and Central Americas (particularly in Puerto Rico, Cuba, Costa Rica, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil — Western in culture, and its mostly multiracial population primarily of European descent, mainly in Centro-Sul but distributed along the entire country —, and all Latin American countries have a considerable population of European origins), with a majority or plurality scenery for "white people" but also a much greater percent including all European descendants, such as mulattoes, mestizos, pardos, métis, etc. Also, Australia and New Zealand are examples of Oceanian countries which have mostly European-derived populations.

Africa has no white-majority country, but there are significant minorities (and creole ethnicity is dominant in Cape Verde). In Asia, European-derived populations predominate in much of Northern and Central Asia (European ethnic groups present in Russian Empire or Soviet Union such as Russians, Ukrainians, Volga Germans and Ashkenazi Jews), specifically parts of Siberia and Kazakhstan. Additionally, transcontinental or geographically Asian countries such as Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cyprus and Turkey have populations historically closely related to Europeans, with considerable genetic and cultural affinity."

The lighter and cleaner edit I could have done. What do you think? Lguipontes (talk) 10:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Lguipontes, please stop making unsourced changes to this article. Again all sorts of ethnic groups are being mentioned without any justification; and "white" is being used as a synonym for "European". This is an article on Europe not ethnic groups of Europe or white people. Please stop changing the article in this non-neutral and unsourced way. This article is not a blog and any changes shoud be carefully sourced. In addition marking edits as "minor", when whole paragraphs have been rewritten, is not helpful. Please produce reliable secondary sources for any changes you are proposing. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 03:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is an example of a reliable source:

Bacci, Massimo Livi (2000), The population of Europe: a history, Wiley-Blackwell, ISBN 0631218815

It can be found on google books or on amazon. Mathsci (talk) 03:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Again: HUUUUUH? I asked questions about your opinion before changes. And you even made editions here before I made the edits hours later, in practice one day. I don't know who you are, Mathsci (I only can presume you know at least some French), but in my country there is the adage that says silence is consent. The argument about Unsourced is ok (even if the content is already in Wikipedia, even if there weren't absolutely no obviously biased phrases in my edits), but about ethnic groups and synonym to "European-derived populations", I certainly did it carefully. Don't you understand? I made references to multiethnic groups of European origin in the Americas and Cape Verde to mention other groups of European origin, and I even carefully said that statistics about white population percents are counterproductive (in the sense of searching European origins among a certain population) because of the plasticity of the socially constructed concept and the reliability of how this data is obtained.

Trust me, I know the differences between continents and races (get the facts straight: I made distinctions between the two concepts, first to explain why not the great majority of American countries are listed on European-derived majority populations but I mentioned the other major groups which perform this role apart from "white people", a questionable concept, and I also said it in Africa because there are lot of insular countries and territories which probably have European-derived majority, the clear certainty about Cape Verde) and I know the proper articles and their respective contents, and I made it so clear that I can doubt your ability to interpret texts. I do not even want to consider looking into internet for sources page after page, if you think that all my edits are bad in some way. Oh, I read the online book, but how can it helps? That's why I asked you to correct any probable and explicable mistake before my changes of the content (since, no irony, you presumibly know better to do it than myself, I'm a little bit newbie), which you ignored.

And you guys don't think that mentioning the 3 Southern Cone countries as the only European-derived countries outside North America is incorrect. Why Uruguay and Chile are so more mentionable than Costa Rica, Cuba and Brazil? There were way more European immigration to Brazil. And Cabo Verde is written Cape Verde in English. Good luck fixing it. I will just wait my internet connexion normalize. It can spend days for my successful login as Lguipontes (which is locked in my other browser of my another PC entirely bugged). :) 189.106.116.194 (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The irony! Recent edits still mention Israel, which is no way European-derived majority even if we count Askenazim and Sephardim as such! 189.106.116.194 (talk) 10:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Recent additions to the History section

On recent edits: The interbreeding of H. sapiens and H. neandertalensis is relevant to the discussion of "displacement of Neandertals by Cro-Magnons"; the evidence for interbreeding between "modern" and "archaic" human populations is based on the most current research, including full sequencing of the Neandertal genome and comparison to the H. sapiens genome. Citing research based on this data which has only recently become available (as the complete Neanderal genome was not sequenced until relatively recently) doesn't fall under WP:UNDUE; this isn't a "minority view". (See here, also here, also here, also here). Spider Jerusalem (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a very general article on the continent of Europe. Statements about DNA and one very recent research paper are completely out of place in the history section of such a general article. This content could possibly be inserted in more specialised articles like Prehistory of Europe; that has not happened so far. Spider Jerusalem has now tried three times to insert this WP:UNDUE content which is too specialized and not sufficiently recognized. Please could he/she stop? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

europe's knights and kings

europe had a interesting history and in his history the ancient romans are rule very longly but in time of sharlman frenk he was an wonderful king he won france,germany,holand,switzerland,spain,and many states he won. but when he come to kingdom the roman time had a very problems but he tried to fixed them. for easy corporation of economical,politcal sides he distribute the whole kingdom to his knights and his knights get the parts of kingdom but after sharlman europe does not have any powerful king that's why the european knights get powerful and now the king have not controled on the knights and the knights have there independente sides but at 12th and 13th century the business grown up and business want a poweful and stable government that secure them and that's why the businessman are support the king and king are gain up with the bang and now the knight are going very powerless and at war of paths the king get whole power and now knights are going down and down.- sompura sagar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.97.249.177 (talk) 14:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

"Mostly in Europe", "Mostly in Asia"

Disruption by indefinitely blocked sockpuppet of banned Satt 2

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I have removed any such statements and adopted a neutral tone. It is not wikipedia's prerogative to determine which country belongs mostly where. The consensus on transcontinental country articles is that they are Eurasian, therefore can belong to either continent. This ambiguity is necessary to maintain neutrality and avoid constant challenges to claims of someone belonging "mostly" in Europe or Asia.--Andriabenia (talk) 11:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

These border issues for transcontinental countries are discussed at length in the article with careful sources, in particular the book "The Myth of Continents". They cannot be removed in the way that you have just done. If you look at the archives, you will see long discussions on this. A consensus has been established and will not be re-argued every six months. Please be aware that making non-neutral edits to this high level article has resulted in ArbCom discretionary sanctions in the past. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 11:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I would also advise against edit warring. This page is much watched and is amongst the 200 most consulted pages on wikipedia. It has been carefully edited and this point in particular has been very carefully sourced. I note that you have been involved in edit wars over Armenia-Georgia issues. This is a neutral and anodyne page which is stable. It is occasionally destablised when users bring border issues that plague articles related to Eastern Europe to this page. Please do not leave messages about this article on my talk page or make unfounded accusations about me here or there. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Please stop insinuating as if you where an authority of some kind on this page; as an experienced editor I'm sure you are familiar with WP:OWN.

Contrary to what you argue, I did not see any discussion of the border issue on the Europe page that would warrant labeling countries as "mostly" belonging to either continent. Deciding that one country belongs "mostly" on one continent or another, when there are sources for both on respective country pages, is not an optimal outcome. This also applies to the area figure for Europe, which somehow suggests that we know where the borders are exactly and unarguably, when in fact we don't.

As for the book "Myth of Continents", I am not familiar with it but I do not see what it could possibly add to this discussion, when this is a matter of elementary consistency across wikipedia articles, as well as the fact the Wikipedia cannot render the aformentioned judgements on matters geographic or otherwise.--Andriabenia (talk) 12:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not my point of view, it is a consensus that has been in place for almost as long as this article has existed, If you wish to edit this article, you must read the sources. Unfamiliarity is not an excuse and presenting your own personal unsourced point of view is not a substitute. Please look at the archives and the discussions there; and please also read the section "Definition" which is written very carefully. The lede is anyway only a summary. I followed the discussions on WP:AN3 between you and Rast5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The last major problems were created here by ComtesseDeMingrelie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a sockpuppet of Satt 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), another frequent visitor to this and related pages.

Is your account in any way connected with the accounts of Satt 2? There seem to be a lot of similarities. Mathsci (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that brushing off editors with a different point of view as sockpuppets/sockpuppeteers is a common practice on these pages and I have been accused on at least on three occasions - [4] [5] [6]. In the end, the accusers ended up being blocked themselves. I guess baseless accusations puts you in the same category with vandals like user:rast5.

As for the discontented users, go through talk pages of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, and you will see that the users you have hand picked are only a small number of editors who dispute various geographic definitions on the mentioned articles.--Andriabenia (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read the sources and stop using this talk page as a SOAPBOX. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not see any sources that would warrant placing transcontinental countries as "mostly" Asian or European. All I see are those that place them on either continent or say they are Eurasian.--Andriabenia (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus among sources about where the boundaries of Europe lie. Obviously Culture, Politics, and basically everything is not defined by the boundaries of the weird peninsula of Eurasia that is Europe, but the Europe that is defined geographically has very clear borders, which are reflected in current text. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Really Chipmunkdavis? Because it seems to me that there was never a consensus among geographers, with various definitions ranging from Kuma–Manych Depression, to the Caucasus Mountains, to Phasis, to Kura River...etc--Andriabenia (talk) 10:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read "The Myth of Continents", a WP:RS from the University of California Press. Personal opinions are of no relevance on this talk page. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Really Andriabenia. Historical definitions are that; historical. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Mathsci, a single work cannot possibly carry so much weight. The views expressed in the book are those of the author and it is not a standard for anything. The consensus where Europe ends does not exists and it will not come into existence just because you and user:chipmunkdavis do not want to see poor peripheral countries like Georgia on this cherished article of yours. Including them as an expression of your mercy - i.e. " they're not really Europe but since they so insist we'll throw them in" - is not something I am willing to put up with. I am not here to make wikipedia decide that they are either European or Asian. I am only against the use of word "mostly."--Andriabenia (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide us with a modern source that discusses the geographical borders of Europe (rather than a these countries are Europe and these are Asian) and uses an alternative definition? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

No Andriabenia, you cannot dismiss sources in this way. Your editing here is tendentious. I am convinced that you are a returning banned user because of your disruptiveness and your continued beating of this dead WP:HORSE. Mathsci (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I just got a hold of book "The Myth of Continents" and I have difficulty locating any information that could serve as a proof that any of the discussed transcontinental countries are mostly here or there. Do you mind providing me with a page? The article citation does not say anything.

As for alternative definitions, I just typed one of them in google - Kura River definition - and immediately came up with this

"The Kura and Qvirila rivers flowing south of Mount Elbrus delineate the border with the Asian continent"

.--Andriabenia (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that you wait until the sockpuppet investigation is resolved. The history of the boundaries is described clearly enough in that book. At the moment you seem to be angaged in WP:OR, Mathsci (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The history I did see in the book but to borrow from user:chipmunkdavis, "historical definitions are that; historical." I do not care about history of definitions. Rather, I want to know what exactly and where exactly in the Myth of Continents did you read that suggest that any of the involved countries are "mostly" here or there? Remember, I never questioned the fact the borders evolved over time. I only questioned the use of word "mostly".--Andriabenia (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Please cite a WP:RS that you intend to use for editing the article. Personal views are just WP:OR and have no bearing on the editing of the main page. So please name the sources, preferably academic books, and then we can examine what they say. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

As you see, I am not editing the article and am not intending to edit war. At this point all I'm asking for is more precision and I'm getting an impression that you are deliberately trying to avoid answering my question.--Andriabenia (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

If you are not going to give any sources, then you should probably leave this page. I am not discussing anything unless you produce a WP:RS. I hope that is clear to you. You own personal point of view is completely irrelevant. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I already produced one source above to show that these definitions are still present in our time, common or not, and I will not be sent on a goose chaise for other sources just so that you can dignify me with a specific page(s) in your favorite book. That's probably because there is no page that supports your assertions above. Your manner of citation - i.e. including the whole book and saying "go figure" on something so specific - belongs more in the suggested readings section of some pages than footnotes.--Andriabenia (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Those travel guides are not written by experts (in this case it is this person), so "108 destinations Europe" does not qualify as a WP:RS. The publishing company, possibly run by Brad Olson, is called, "Consortium of Collective Consciousness Publishing". Please try to find an academic textbook on the history of continents. "The Myth of Continents" is one of the few such textbooks. Mathsci (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It may well be one of few such textboooks, too bad it does not seem to address the specific issue that I have raised. Namely, how you determined which transcontinental countries belonged mostly where.I am not going to go digging through sources to find something that challenges...well, nothing, because your book, as far as this specific issue is concerned, proves nothing, however academic it may be. I can list a plethora of scholarly works but what good will they do if they do not support me on a specific fact?

That is, if I'm saying that a particular country belongs "mostly" in one place and I cite scholarly source A, and then it turns out that scholarly source A says no such thing, what good will its author or his reputation do?--Andriabenia (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

If it cannot be found in academic textbooks, it cannot be included in the article. Mathsci (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

True, and I was not intending to, but you can also not include in the article something that your academic book does not support. Academic does not justify "I'm going to throw this in as a source and let dummies like Andriabenia figure out the rest, even if there is nothing to figure out, because the source does not support what I claimed. I mean, how could a newbie challenge me, I'm Mathsci! I have been on this article since the beginning of times. Just writing the name of the book and its ISBN should be enough of a proof. As long as its scholarly, of course."--Andriabenia (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You have just tag bombed the footnotes in the article. On the other hand it's fairly easy to find discussions about boundaries in the Caucasus. The book "The Caucasus: An Introduction" by Frederik Coene, published by Routledge, makes it clear that the issue is completely ambiguous. On page 5, Coene states, "The question of whether the Caucasus belongs to Europe or to Asia has been and still is the subject of many intense discussions." He then gives five differing descriptions / interpretations of the borders:

The Caucasus belongs entirely to Asia because the Europe-Asia border passes through the Kuma-Maynsch depression.
The Caucasus belongs entirely to Europe because the Europe-Asia border passes along the border between the South Caucasian countries on the one side and Turkey-Iran on the other.
The Northern Caucasus belongs to Europe and the Southern Caucasus to Asia, because the Europe-Asia border passes along the main Caucasian range.
The part of the Caucasus north of the rivers Rioni and Kura belongs to Europe and the part to the south to Asia, because the rivers form the Europe-Asia border.
The main western part of the Caucasus belongs to Europe and a smaller part in the east (basically most of Azerbaijan and small parts of Georgia, Armenia and the Caspian Sea coast of the Russian Federation) to Asia, because the Europe-Asia border passes along the landscape border. This last version is the most widely accepted one.

These ambiguities can be spelt out in an article on the Caucasus, but that detail is unnecessary in this general article. The border that you described, according to this source, is only one of five possibilities and is not the most widely accepted one. Mathsci (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure either what the purpose was of tagging the disputed territories of Abkhazia and Southern Ossetia. Please could you explain and indicate where you might expect to find sources in the circumstances. Mathsci (talk) 08:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I have seen all of those definitions before but following your example of digging through various Europe/Asia debates of the past, I came upon an interesting wisdom shared by our friend user:chipmunkdavis: Wikipedia is not a competition of sources. So I don't think you can count definitions found here and there and render judgements, while disregarding other opinions, especially when it seems that in the listed definitions the opinion is split fairly evenly, at least when it comes to the placement of North Caucasus and Georgia.

In the end, I still don't get how you calculated that transcontinental countries belong mostly here or mostly there because of the listed definitions only the Kura-Qvirila definition gives a clear possibility of stating which country belongs mostly where, since in this case you can just follow the river. For this reason, your removal of citation requests was unjustified and I request that you place them where they belong unless there is a source that explicitly states, like then Kura-Qvirila definition, where the border goes.--Andriabenia (talk) 11:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, Chipmunkdavis and other regular watchers of this page, including me, are all in agreement. Chipmunkdavis has also asked you to provide sources and you have so far produced nothing reliable. Note that in the article Caucasus, the main Caucasian range is taking as the geographical boundary between Europe and Asia. I did not calculate anything in these articles. I helped write the Definition and History sections. So stop personalising this discussion and wait for other editors to contribute. So far nobody has agreed with you and you have not made the slightest attempt to find any sources to back up your point of view: you have stated without justification that you don't like the CIA Factbook. Mathsci (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The source you yourself provided above is enough of a proof that there are a variety of definitions and that based on these collectively you cannot say where a particular country "mostly" belongs. The most you can do is say they are transcontinental or Eurasian. As for the Caucasus page, such abandoned articles are often an ideal place for POV pushing which on more visited pages will not stand. So this is hardly a standard for a page like Europe, or pages of involved transcontinental countries.

Lastly, I do not need chipmunkdavis' or any other users' approval to know that the CIA and the UN are hardly geographic authorities of any kind, as you imply by your edits. Since you like to distinguish from "geographic" sources, let me tell you that they are as "political" as any other organization/agency sources that you like to disregard.--Andriabenia (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:BRD

This seems to be deteriorating into an edit war. The procedure outlined in BRD is that the editor makes a change (Andriabenia), another reverts it, the page stays reverted (without the proposed changes) until the discussion can form a WP:CONSENSUS

Hopefully discussion can form a consensus acceptable to both parties, at which point any agreed changes can be made.

If this is against some already agreed consensus, apologies, but after briefly reading the above remarks and seeing the edit histories, it seems that the bold changing editor is unwilling to accept that there is not consensus for their addition. Chaosdruid (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand all the details of the dispute above, but that most of Turkey is in Asia seems uncontroversial... AnonMoos (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting article

"Where Is Europe?" by Frank Jacobs, New York Times, January 9, 2012... AnonMoos (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

A Continent only by Convention and Not in Fact

The fact that Europe and Asia are not really separate continents should be recognized at the beginning of the article. Yes, by convention! That is sort of like saying the two are "honorary continents." Or maybe this should be compared with "the emperor's new clothes"? This is all so elementary. The convention has to be referred to, but we should make clear that it is not true, as is of course clear to the beginner who reads more of the article. In his Study of History, Toynbee analyzes this false division. To the early Greeks, the two seemed to resemble separate continents because they were divided by the Straits, the Black Sea, and the Aegean--but not further north. Actually, "Asia" originally referred only to Anatolia.I would have to check exact references and may not get to this task soon. Someone else is welcome to do so. Eleanor1944 (talk) 05:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

We already open that it is a continent by convention. CMD (talk) 10:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the use of the phrase "by convention" is quite sufficient. Language is convention, and Europe is conventionally defined as a continent. As far as I can see, the introduction does not in any way imply that Europe and Asia are separate continents (in the sense of being separated by an ocean or being on different tectonic plates, for instance). Similarly, the Pacific Ocean is separated from other oceans by convention rather than by land. I can't imagine anyone being misled into believing that Europe and Asia are not contiguous.--Boson (talk) 10:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The Americas are really continents by a convention then as well, since they are not really separate continents, but connected my a thin stripe of called called Central America. Norum 06:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Only if you then consider that Africa is also only a continent by convention as well, as it is connected to Eurasia by the Sinai peninsula. 64.180.40.75 (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

1945–1990: The Cold War

I think this section should be rewritten. Spain, for instance, didn't need to recover from World War II, as the article seems to imply, because it didn't participate in the conflict and wasn't in a state of ruin because of it. Also, it seems unbalanced to mention Franco, as none of the leaders of the other countries are mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.29.182.219 (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Political geography ➜ France

France metropolitan aera is not accurate. Check France. 109.15.46.23 (talk) 06:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

hello

My name is Basit and i am boy of 16years old i am here for knowledge i will like to contact you here mail me on basitalhassan16@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.251.172.134 (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Geography of Europe

How does this unsourced verbosity help (in reference to the Arctic, and not also the Atlantic), while detailing this below in the appropriate section is reverted as unsourced? As even a basic map will reveal [7], this is rather incomprehensible, even idiotic. A fuller explanation is required. Ubiquinoid (talk) 07:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

If you want to add content to the main body of the article, please find a reliable secondary source ftom which to paraphrase the edits you wish to amle. Just listing seas which you consider to contiguous to the island or mainland of Europe is WP:OR and not helpful to the reader. Please ind a reliable source mentioning that content and that paraphrase it from there. Making inferences from maps is WP:OR (some divine entity apparently has told you to mention the English Channel but not the Irish Sea). So please don't tell other editors that not accprting your unsourced reseach is idiotic or incomprehensible. It is WP policy. Please don't edits without sources in this case. A map is not a source: an academic textbook is a source.In this case the cited reference is the Encyclopedia Brittanica and the citation states, "It is bordered on the north by the Arctic Ocean, on the west by the Atlantic Ocean, and on the south (west to east) by the Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea, the Kuma-Manych Depression, and the Caspian Sea." It does not include seas in your self-generated arbitrary list. Please do not make personal attacks either her or in your edit summaries. I will restore the content from the EB. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

You seem willy-nilly in your commentary and editing. The root of the challenge is in your initial tendentious maintenance of unnecessary wordiness upfront, misplaced and unsourced at all, while deprecating a worthwhile attempt to economise the lead and add detail in the appropriate section. That certainly does not help editing. I did not list every single bay, cove, and sea ad nauseum since this is supposed to be a summative article, but they are major bodies bordering the mainland listed by the IHO. I can very well source every single assertion (e.g., IHO, European Environmental Agency), but the point has been made and I have little time to quibble excessively over minutiae. And, given your apparently troubled editing history, you are not one to lecture me on etiquette. End thread. Ubiquinoid (talk) 10:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

If you want to add content to the main body of a wikipedia articlesuch as this high profile article, please adhere faithfully to sources. Most of what you write above has no place on an article talk page: there is no need to personalize the discussion. Inventing content that is not in the cited sources is WP:OR and cannot be included. This is amongst the most viewed articles on wikipedia. There have been periodic discussions about borders, which are now discussed in several sections of the article (in particular the definition of Europe). Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

You should have considered your own advice with the first revert; everything else I have noted above is valid, and may restore more once I source it. And that is all. Ubiquinoid (talk) 11:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

LGBT section Same-sex marriage

An editor added unsourced content that appeared to be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Per WP:BRD, I reverted that addition. If proper sources can be found concerning the continent of Europe, then content could be added. I personally doubt that any textbook or encyclopedia uses the terminology LGBT and my feeling is the article should not either. (Incidentally the spelling in the article is "British English": please see the template at the top of the page.) Mathsci (talk) 09:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The same user added this content again without engaging in discussions here. The heading "LGBT" already expresses a point of view which goes beyond what is in the sources. The material is WP:UNDUE in such a general article about a continent. The same kind of edits have been made to Africa and reverted for similar reasons: this is utterly irrelevant for this article which is about a continent. Mathsci (talk) 03:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

First you said there are no sources. Then when i added sources you still complain. How am i suposed to take you seriously when you keep changing your mind and moving the goal post? As for WP:UNDUE, the paragraph is very short wih only three short sentences. If it was six or seven sentences i'd see your point about undue weight, but not in this case because its a very small paragraph. Pass a Method talk 07:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE appears in both edit summaries. This is amongst the most read articles on wikipedia. Here, instead of composing content yourself, you have cherry-picked and copy-pasted sentences from an existing wikipedia article to produce this content. In the original article they were not properly sourced. You have decided to add content only concerning "single sex marriages". You added your own sources later without changing the content (or for that matter the US spelling of behaviour). The original and unchanging objection is that material that you have concoted (in some cases concerning legislation that is still being discussed) has no place in a very general article on a continent. In the same way, although they are not comparable, there are a large variety of topics not directly related to the continent that are not discussed (capital punishment, the death penalty, women's suffrage, enforced sterilization, etc). The same applies to Africa and it would seem that you appear to be pushing some kind of agenda here. The article in the EB on Europe has no section on same-sex marriage, because it is not relevant to an article on a continent. You have edit warred on Africa and Europe about similar content, which has no direct bearing on the main topic. Mathsci (talk) 09:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Considering LGBT issues are a major topic of discussion in European newspapers, per due it would be appropriate to list them. As for the the topics of death penalty, suffrage, those can be discussed in the political subsection. "Gay europe" gets 1 trillion results on google. which is more than double of "religion europe", suggesting it is an important topic. Pass a Method talk 09:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

This is not a current affairs article. It is an encyclopedic article on the continent of Europe. It does mention the European Union, but that is just one part of the article. You have a created a "LGBT rights" section on the same level as "Religion". Perhaps in an article on the recent politics of the European Union, it might be appropriate, but not here. You have concocted a short essay on a topic of interest to you—"same-sex marriage"—and are edit-warring to keep it in the article. But if it is not the sort of thing found in a major encyclopedia and involves WP:RECENTISM, why should it be in the article on wikipedia? It is arbitrary content (like the issues of ordination of women or gay bishops) and seems to be your personal cherry-picked selection of material, copy-pasted from an article where it is relevant. I don't think googling "gay europe" is really the way we edit wikipedia or decide on content. (My simple explanation for the number of hits is that that particular combination of words brings up a huge amount of material unsuitable for safe-searching or for encyclopedia articles.) In the same way we don't include material about child abuse, racial discrimination, etc, etc. Please take a look at the article in the Encyclopedia Britannica to get a sense of balance. There seems to be no justification for adding this kind of content when it is only indirectly related to the main topic of the article, the continent of Europe. I have asked Maunus to comment here. Mathsci (talk) 10:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

One of the ways wikipedians measure Due Weight is by seeing how often a topic is covered in media, books etc. In this case, LGBT issues are covered often enough for there to be mention of this issue. Otherwise your objections can be used to the language subsection too, or the religin subsection. right? I reiterate, there are only three sentences. Pass a Method talk 10:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Your sole justification is that by typing "gay europe" into google you come up with "trillions" of links: but many of these, possibly the overwhelming majority, are undoubtedly to sites that specialize in gay porn, rent boys, bath houses, etc. That is not a persuasive argument for introducing this WP:UNDUE content. You are POV-pushing and edit-warring and highly likely to be blocked for editing tendentiously on an anodyne and neutral article. Usually this kind of tendentious editing has occurred with those making edits related to Eastern Europe and transcontinental countries. Your edits are equally disruptive. Someone else will undoubtedly remove the section you added. Mathsci (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I gave other justifications, please re-read what i said. Furthermore, i want you to give me one good reason why social, language, immigration and religion deserve a subsection but LGBT does not? Pass a Method talk 13:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

None of your changes improve the article. The edit about inventions does not match the EB source but seems to be your own personal point of view. The LGBT section seems to be irrelevant POV-pushing. Copy-pasting cherry-picked content from other articles is not the way to write wikipedian articles. I was unable to check the EB links about inventions: they no longer work. So presumably in changing the content, you made it up yourself. The references for the first sentences are the book of John Boswell: it is hard to see how the one sentence summary was made from pages 80-85. The book has a chapter on "Same-sex unions in the Greco-Roman world" (pages 53-107). The sentence is not an accurate summary of that chapter, nor of what follows. The second reference is again a reference to same-sex marriage and Roman law. But although homsexuality and its acceptance might be of interest, why the fixation on same-sex marriage? The second sentence is from "Latitude News" (is it a WP:RS?) and a CNN news report. This is not a current affairs article nor a place to report on same-sex marriage, before it has even been legalized and has dubious relevance to this actual article on a continent. Shuffling around other material under dubious headings also seems arbitrary and does not improve the article in any way whatsoever. You don't actually seem to have used any sources, since all the content you added was copy-pasted from LGBT rights in Europe. Mathsci (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, there are no wikipedia rules against copy-pasting from other wikipedia articles. Secondly, you make contradictory statements; is it (a) the lgbt section entirely is the problem? or (b) the fixation on same-sex marriage is the problem? You dont get your point accross too well. Pass a Method talk 14:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:CWW, attribution is required. You did not do this. --92.4.177.142 (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) I have to agree with Mathsci, particularly on undue emphasis. Same-sex marriage is essentially a civil/human rights issue and that is not a topic which is extensively discussed in the article. Referring to same-sex marriage but not female genital mutilation, human trafficking or religious persecution is as good example of wp:undue as you'll probably get. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 17:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Europe is a continent with a millenial history - same sex marriage, and LGBT right, is a small and very specialized topic that has no relevance to the description of the continent of Europe (just like female rights, worker's rights, or even human rights). Such political topics may be relevant for the particular countries - but since there is no reason to think that countries in Europe share any particular reation to the topic of LGBTQ there is no reason it should have a subsection in this article. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

culture section

First of all this source it's new and not as you claimed :) secondly just because you think different it's not mean that this is "non-neutral", the source was: "The Crisis of Western Education" by Christopher Dawson, so i can understant that this "book" is "non-neutral"!!!.Jobas (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It is no-neutral because it expresses the authors personal opinion of what "European culture" is or has been, an opinion with which obviously huge amounts of people disagree. The ancient Greeks or the Romans certainly weren't mostly Christian, or the Vikings or Celts for that matter. And of course you must be aware of the fact that the connection between chrisytianity and European identity is highly political and controversial topic in Europe right now. Of course the lead of the article is not going to flatly state the view of one side of that dispute.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

ok thank for respond, but in my previous amendment i mementioned also the Ancient Greece and Roman Empire, along with Christianity they were an important elements for western culture, and the role of Christianity in western civilization has been has been intricately intertwined with the history and formation of Western society, any way i understand your point since there will be a subject of dispute.Jobas (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Ranking link

In the begining of the article when it says Europe is the "second-smallest" continent it links to the "List of continents by population" page which has no information on area whatsoever(not even a map or population density). I think this link shoud be changed to a link to the "Continent" page (or a section of it) because that page has extensive information on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.117.255.133 (talk) 01:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Done, good idea. CMD (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Development of Europe

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

there is a gallery after http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe#20th_century_to_present. It should be changed and include also ancient times, not only started with med-ieval, just because even typical Americans connects Europe with for e.g. Romans. The map File:Roman_expansion_264_BC_Shepherd.jpg show good example of tribes living in ancient times(if You can just remove the "little maps" covering the cities.

E.g. change: add to gallery section

Done Rivertorch (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

CoE map not actual

From 2003 and not very neat. Please someone replace it with a newer and better map. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 October 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

1) Note mark in table: [s] at Nagorno-Karabakh should be [r] 2) Note mark in table: [r] at Abkhazia and South Ossetia should be [q], perhaps also [m] 3) in remark C: "... However only the population figure includes the entire state" - it seems, that the area figure also (it's bigger than total for Europe, see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia); expression "However only" strange in the place where precise figures only for European part should be the desired status. 4) remark J for Kazakhstan: the same situations as in 3) 5) remark N for Turkey: the same situations as in 3) 6) remark M for Georgia: clear statement that the area and population figures are for the entire territory (not only European part) would be useful 7) "orphaned" remarks A and S. 149.156.20.39 (talk) 08:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Done, I think, and ow, my brain... what a horrible system, this cnote. -— Isarra ༆ 18:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Deep ancestry of the Europeans

This genetic map, can be useful to look into the deep ancestry of the Europeans. Maybe it could be of use:

http://www.scs.illinois.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf

Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.203.72 (talk) 03:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Golden Horde and Tatars

Please do not with add unsourced content to the "History" section. An editor has expanded the content related to the Golden Horde without new sources and with far more detail than is appropriate for what is just a summary of the history of Europe. The final paragraph added about Siberia and Alaska concerned the history of Asia and not that of Europe. The history section is quite carefully sourced. To add new material please ensure that it directly concerns the history of Europe, is properly sourced and is concise and in summary form. Mathsci (talk) 07:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Mathsci, I understand why you removed my content I added in Europe, but when you removed the edits I made, you also removed some other changes I made to the article besides that of the Tatars. I also found the article to be biased. I added the part of Almış turning Volga Bulgaria into an Islamic state after his conversion, because I saw there were other random facts scattered across the article, such as the Crimean Tatars collecting Slavic slaves. I found these facts to be biased towards one side of the (hi)story of Europe, and not the other side. It also seems to describe the Tatars as if equating them with Mongols despite the fact that this is an error. The description of Russia expanding into Siberia and Alaska is part of European history and would have a major impact on the development of events in Europe. It is very brief. I will edit it.

If you must edit the article, then do so, but with the considerations in mind based on what I have written above. Perhaps the part of the Golden Horde can be condensed, but with the main points being that the Horde converted to Islam (probably under the influence of the Muslims already in the land of the Horde, such as the Volga Bulgars), and that their territory was mostly Turkic, and not an "occupied Russia" as is erroneously believed since Russia and the Eastern Slavs had not yet occupied these lands before the Mongol conquest except in very small areas. I will get sources on this later (this week hopefully as I know what the sources are). I ask you though, to not remove the whole of the material, but to place an "unsourced" tag if needed. I believe this is important to give a neutral view of European history. --Fernirm (talk) 07:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Please find a source or sources instead of writing the content "from your own head" in a discursive and parenthetic way. I assume that you also edited History of Europe with the ip 67.49.73.135, since identical wording without sources was used in both cases. I helped modify the history section some time ago and every attempt to maintain WP:NPOV was made. Your own edits to both articles seem to skew the content: in both articles you complain about "bias". You have objected to references to countries under Christian rule and have attempted to add undue content about Muslim rule. Please could you stick to reliable sources, preferably books on the history of Europe, and not edit articles to "right great wrongs" as that is POV-pushing? Mathsci (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I have added sources and condensed this history to a very small portion containing the most essential details. Also relating to the history of Europe, I am not out for an agenda, merely to correct popular fallacies, for instance, is it not biased to say that the Spaniards were "pushing Muslims out of Iberia"? This assumes that all the Muslims are invaders and that none of these Muslims are Spaniards, despite the fact that most of the Muslims in Iberia by the year 1100 were local converts. I am not pushing a pro-Muslim agenda as you might suspect, I am trying to give equity to the history of all. I especially found the statement "With the usual pride of advanced thinkers, the Humanists..." to be very biased (it sounds unencyclopedic). Again, you undid my edit without regards to details that I did not come up from my own head as you sat, such as changing "Kipchaks" to "Kipchak-Cuman Confederation", or the conquest of the Siberian Khanate before expansion into the rest of Siberia. Spain did experience a great cultural golden age during al-Andalus, so it seems biased to me to say that Spain had a golden age, this assumes al-Andalus is illegitimate, that's why I added "Christian Spain" so as to remove this bias. Writing that "Christian Europe" instead of "Europeans" makes it clear that not all Europeans were one and the same culture or religion, as was the case at the time of the fall of Constantinople, before it, and after it. I will certainly add sources to this material. And yes, this is righting "great wrongs". ;) --Fernirm (talk) 08:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content about the expansion of Russia into Asia and beyond. It might be your personal point of view but is not directly related to the history of Europe. Again this is skewing content in a non-neutral and inappropriate way. This content is relevant to the History of Russia, but not here. Mathsci (talk) 08:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Peninsulas in Europe

Regarding this revert, the reason I added the category is because Europe is a Peninsula, and clearly Europe is in Europe. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Cat Peninsulas in Europe? Clearly those peninsulas are in Europe; but Europe, a peninsula or continent or whatever part of Eurasia is, is not in a peninsula... --E4024 (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Europe is quite easily defined as a peninsula, but is an entity inside itself? I wouldn't use that terminology. An odd semantic question indeed. CMD (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Use -if exists- the category "Peninsulas in Eurasia" and we will not have to spend this much energy to understand you. --E4024 (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Fall of "Byzantines" in 1453 after being "fatally weakened"

Last sentence under the heading "Early Middle Ages":

"Fatally weakened by the sack of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade, the Byzantines fell in 1453 when they were conquered by the Ottoman Empire." I find there two problems with this sentence:

1. While Constantinople fell in 1453, other Byzantine cities only fell later, i.e. Trebizond in 1461. It certainly does make sense to associate the fall of the "Byzantine Empire" with the fall of its capital, itself one of the last strongholds to fall to the Ottomans. Please note, that even this is not objective fact, only interpretation, albeit a sensible and widely agreed upon one. But if you are using the fuzzy term "Byzantines", which I interpret along the lines of "Territory, Cities or Population with Byzantine allegiance", then this is not true anymore. Some "Byzantines" still survived a bit longer, even if their empire had already fallen.

2. It is a very bold assertion to make a monocausal connection between the sack of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade, i.e. in 1204, and the final collapse of the empire more than two centuries later! While it was certainly not a very good day for the empire when their capital was captured and their territories divided, only to be restored some 50 years later at a smaller scale, nobody in this world is able to make this bold assertion and support it with scientific evidence. Weakened? Yes, absolutely. Fatally weakened? In other words: irreversibly and exclusively by this event weakened? Who can say!?

Therefore my suggestion to change the sentence above into: "Weakened by the sack of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade, the Byzantine Empire fell with the conquest of Constantinople by the Ottoman Empire in 1453."

Thank you for your time! 79.249.113.191 (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Why do we have to look for a justification 250 years before? Is it so difficult to accept the Ottoman victory, simple because it was superior to the Byzantines? (This is not a question, I mean remove all reference to the Fourth Crusade.) That is a POV not only against the Ottoman supremacy but also a subjective complaint "you see, you made us lose to those Turks" to some nations... --E4024 (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

No, we're not going to remove all references to the Fourth Crusade to satisfy your notion of "Ottoman supermacy". Athenean (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The sentence is sourced to the National Geographic Visual History of the World, so please look there to see whether the summary was a bit too drastic. (That kind of tweaking seems fine to me.) Finding an additional source would also be good. Mathsci (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I found six new citations which all verify this well-known historical fact. This fact is known widely except, apparently, to those advocating Ottoman supremacy. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The Byzantine Empire wasn't at its best before the Crusades. What the fourth Crusade did was to smash the entire might of the empire, conquering Constantinople itself. Losing a capital is a great blow to any state (the Bulgarians came close to doing the same in the 900s, but left after some deft diplomacy). After basically disintegrating (although it was quite remarkably put back together by the remaining pieces afterwards), the empire lost all pretence of being the powerful and strong Roman state it once was. This was the irrevocable weakening the sources describe. (I suppose what might be similar is if London was conquered during the Second World War.) Whether or not the Ottomans would have conquered it without the crusade is just a what if, similar to the IPs note that whether it was necessarily a fatal weakening is a what if. That said, I support the IPs change. Their argument is quite good, and the information conveyed is the same. CMD (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Many of the sources which I added explicitly use the expression "fatally weakened". To rephrase by omitting the "fatal" part would be original research. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the first part of the IP's proposed edit, but I think "fatally" should stay, as a significant body of literature uses this characterization. Athenean (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I added five more citations using that very description. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Communism in eastern Europe

I noticed that under Eastern Europe and the cold war that it wasn't really mentioned that many countries in eastern Europe not only where affiliated with the USSR but where communist until the revolutions of 1989 when Mikhail Gorbachev said that counties in the Soviet Union no longer had to remain in it's ranks. I believe this is a vital point in European history whether you view it as good or bad. I only point this out to make this article better thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hward4116SS (talk • contribs) 19:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 January 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please edit ^[2] since it is not supported by the (dead) link. Instead, the link's source, Princeton's Wordnet, now states ^[3], see http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=europe&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o8=1&o1=1&o7=&o5=&o9=&o6=&o3=&o4=&h= So, please use the source's content, or delete the sentence altogether. 79.220.24.16 (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

What did you want changed? The 2nd citation on the page links to a National Geographic source. Banaticus (talk) 09:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

^ Lewis & Wigen 1997, p. 226
^ "In addition, people living in areas such as Ireland, the United Kingdom, the North Atlantic and Mediterranean islands and also in Scandinavia may routinely refer to "continental" or "mainland" Europe simply as Europe or "the Continent".[21]"
^ "the British use `Europe' to refer to all of the continent except the British Isles"

Etymology as part of definition?

The recent change in format, which I reverted, was unhelpful. The definition of Europe is a historical matter according to the sources and has very little to do with the etymology. The mixing up of the principal clickable map detailing transcontinental countries rendered the start of the article unreadable. The separation into "definition" and "etymology" seems fine and there seems to be no reason to change it. Mathsci (talk) 07:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the Etymology section contributes nothing to the article and must be removed. It is only an unnecessary "filling" and serves to create an impression like every place name has to have a Greek origin and that we could not yet find it out in the case of Europe. As it is, it is not only irrelevant and unnecessary but also POV. I am removing that part. --E4024 (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

No, we are not going to remove it simply because you don't like it. Athenean (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no reason to remove that paragraph or to claim falsely that there was consensus to remove it on this talk page. The etymology goes back to Ancient Greece and the first paragraph provides context for the reader. Mathsci (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Please leave your ARBMAC-related naming-warring out of this article. You have waged a long and sustained campaign of suppression of Greek and Armenian onomatology and promotion of Turkish onomatology and alphabet characters across many different articles. You even attempted to add the Turkish name to the capital of Greece. The pattern has become clear. Please know when to stop. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Off-topic comments by topic-banned editor

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Matschi (and anybody else who may be interested), let me explain the issue. Our article's "Etymology" section begins with this paragraph: "In ancient Greek mythology, Europa was a Phoenician princess whom Zeus abducted after assuming the form of a dazzling white bull. He took her to the island of Crete where she gave birth to Minos, Rhadamanthus, and Sarpedon. For Homer, Europe (Ancient Greek: Εὐρώπη, Eurṓpē; see also List of Greek place names) was a mythological queen of Crete, not a geographical designation." The paragraph cites no sources (although even the lead has sources) and there is nothing useful in this paragraph to the article on Europe. It does not explain nor contribute to understand from where the name "Europe" comes. Therefore it is irrelevant and unnecessary. Someone else could put this argument of mine better with several WP bluelinks; I am not that knowledgable on all of those links (some conflicting with each other, AFAICS). However, I have done "editing" for many years, in total more than the average age of several WPians around; as a journalist, as an academic and as an administrator who makes reductions every (working) day, since a quarter of a century or even more. I have learned a golden rule: If you take away any part of a text and the text does not lose anything from its value, it is because that part was "extra" or "redundant"; in other words "unnecessary". With this belief I removed that part from the article exactly 19 days ago. When you reverted my edit, I wrote a very kind message to you on your TP, under the title "Good wishes". I allow myself to repeat it here: "I visited here and saw that you are recuperating from heart surgery; so I wish you a very speedy recovery and the best of health all your life. After this I almost forgot what I wanted to tell you. I guess it was related to an edit of mine reverted by you. I think I had given enough reasoning at the edit summary but never mind. When you find time please read again the part that I had removed from the article, slowly, and you will see that my edit summary was correct and the edit also; if a piece does not add anything in the context it is used, that means it is empty talk. I do not want to disturb you much. Get well and best feelings." Your reaction to this message was to delete it and show me the road to the article TP with your deletion edit summary, without even thanking me. (I noticed that you have "archives" but you did not "archive" my message, you simply deleted it. Alas...) Now, after more than two weeks I came back to this "Europe" page. First I wrote my argument above there. (You gave no response.) The only responses I received were the ones above. One of them is telling me "I don't like it". (The user is referring to me but in the end it means s/he does not like my idea but has no argument against.) The other one tries to intimidate me with an "Arbmac-related naming warring". What naming-warring here? I removed a paragraph that has no contribution whatsoever to the subject. I did this twice, with a long time span in-between and after presenting my argument which really did not receive any counter-arguments regarding etymology or onomastics. (Matschi)you came and reverted my removal saying "There was no consensus". BTW, Matschi, I would like to ask you kindly: Have you once ever tried to "interact" with me in WP? (I know this is not your TP and maybe I should not dwell on these "personal" issues now here. But your previous conduct does not give me assurances that I will be welcome in your TP, although I visited there -if I am not wrong- only once and for the above-occasion.) I request other users (out of this four, including myself) to please comment on the necessity (or the lack of) the said paragraph in the "Etymology" section of this article. Let us limit ourselves to the article; to the current contribution, not the contributor. Thanks a lot. --E4024 (talk) 09:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Please don't write huge walls of texts like this as it is completely unreadable (tl;dr). At the moment you are editing tendentiously on the talk page of a neutral, anodyne and high profile article. Leaving messages on my talk page about any particular article is unhelpful as other editors of the article cannot see what particular point is being made. In this case the short paragraph is neutral and highly relevant to the etymology. The accompanying image is also helpful. Please also avoid personalized comments, per WP:TPG. The only place I have commented on your editing patterns otherwise is at WP:AE. The above post is a typical example of battleground conduct. Mathsci (talk) 09:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Greece in Asia

Are the Greek Islands in the Aegean just off the coast of turkey considered Europe or Asia because if they're considered asia then Greece is partly in Asia--J intela (talk) 07:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

All greek islands are in Europe despite of the fact they re really next the turkish territory — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kisscool57 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 March 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi! The main table in the "Political geography" section is not sortable. Can that be fixed? Thank you. 12.139.227.194 (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Done - Added 'class="sortbottom"' to the bottom Total box. --[[ axg ◉ talk ]] 22:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Political Geography

After looking at the third table in "Political Geography", I wondered why Republika Srpska was included in the list of "several dependencies and similar territories with broad autonomy". It seems like the following sentence, "Note that the list does not include the constituent countries of the United Kingdom, federal states of Germany and Austria, and autonomous territories of Spain and the post-Soviet republics as well as the republic of Serbia" could also include, or opt to not include, the political entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Why have it in there and not the other entity, and not the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina? On the other hand, all the other dependencies are not attached geographically to the nations of which they are dependent.

I guess what I'm saying is that the Republika Srpska seems to be one of two parts of a federation, rather than a territory with broad autonomy. The table should include either both parts, or neither of them. Paploo (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it. It makes no sense to include it given the omission of the "constituent countries of the United Kingdom, federal states of Germany and Austria, and autonomous territories of Spain and the post-Soviet republics as well as the republic of Serbia." --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 01:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Please don't bring WP:ARBEE-type disputes to this page. The United Kingdom and its constituent elements (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Island) are not comparable to recently created countries in Eastern Europe. Please do not delete entries from the table as that will only cause problems in the future. Please add extra countries in Eastern Europe if that is what you want. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 01:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The removal is based on reasoning it isn't an ethnic matter. Another editor already expressed concern over the matter with legitimate concern. I apologize, but Western European disputes are not somehow so prestigious that they can be discussed on the talkpage while Eastern European disputes cannot. Your claim that those examples are not comparable is not backed by any reasoning and is simply your personal feeling being pushed. Hell looking at the article they aren't mentioned once in the article let alone in the same table yet their described as countries in their respective articles. A bit odd. You failed to also address the omission of the "federal states of Germany and Austria, and autonomous territories of Spain and the post-Soviet republics as well as the republic of Serbia." --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 02:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

As a humble reader not well versed in geography, might I ask why it is that the one is included but not the other? No obvious explanation jumped out at me from looking at the two articles. Is there a reason, or is this purely an omission, implying that the other should be included as well? Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I know you from elsewhere :) I agree that both should be listed as constituent territories, the republic and the federation, possibly with a footnote about Brčko District (as on list of sovereign states). Mathsci (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I have added the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I hope that's OK. Mathsci (talk) 02:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Respond to the concerns of arbitrary omissions above otherwise feel free to add them to the list. Again I remind you that you do not own the article. You can't set content based purely on your personal liking while blindly reverting others' edits. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 02:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I just did what Sławomir Biały suggested. It seemed very sensible. Wny not ask him? Perhaps I should mention that a while back Rejedef (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) persistently objected to the use of the term Eastern Europe in this and other articles on Europe, claiming it was derogatory. He was indefinitely blocked by Floquenbeam after being reported at WP:ANI by Jayjg. Mathsci (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

...and Paploo's suggestions seemed "very sensible" to me. Please stop stonewalling by refusing to fully respond to the arbitrary omissions. You have thus far simply suggested I only "add extra countries in Eastern Europe" to this cherry picked list. Either the two entities are removed or the arbitrary omissions that are noted in the article ("the constituent countries of the United Kingdom, federal states of Germany and Austria, and autonomous territories of Spain and the post-Soviet republics as well as the republic of Serbia") are included in the table as well. I have no idea why you bring up this Rejedef individual as it does nothing to help progress this discussion. I have to point out that it was you who brought up this emphasis on Eastern Europe in your edit summary, on this talkpage, and on my talkpage. I've stated that this is not a forbidden topic simply because it has an Eastern European aspect and that this issue was also a concern of another editor. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 05:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I also fail to understand why the constituent states of Bosnia and Herzegovina are on this list. Everything else is a dependency or (the Aland islands and Svalbard) has a unique status (as opposed to say two states in a federation) guaranteed by an international agreement. CMD (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

It can be done either way. Either both there or both absent. The list of sovereign states by comparison has a very clear format. An alternative to the current version is to remove the two entries in the third table, but add an explanatory footnote for Bosnia-Herzegovina, mentioning the three constituent parts: the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Republika Srpska; and the smaller administrative unit Brčko District (i.e. the same format as the list article). I agree that in retrospect the appearance of the constituent parts looks odd in the third table, because everything apart from the two constituent parts of Bosnia-Herzegovina is some form of smallish island or peninsula. So putting that information in a footnote in the first table and not listing the constituent parts in the third table looks optimal.

I also looked back to see how the third table was created. In December 2010, there were only two tables, with neither constituent part mentioned. The second and third tables were created on 3 May 2011 by Chipmunkdavis.[8] The entry for Republika Srpska was added[9] on 30 September 2011 by an editor fairly obviously from there.[10]. Looking back over edits in 2011, Chipmnkdavis, it is frightening to see the proportion of edits from now banned editors like Polgraf, Comtesse de Mingrele, Rejedef, etc.

So an optimal solution seems to be to remove the two entries from the third table and add a new footnote R for the entry Bosnia-Herzegovina in the first table. That should keep everybody happy. Mathsci (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the entries and created the footnote. Mathsci (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

An issue solved and another created. The footnotes for the sovereign countries table deal with geographies and populations. I see no reason why Bosnia and Herzegovina should in particular have a footnote describing its autonomous parts while other countries do not. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 23:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Images

Nowadays, we're tending to use bigger images than the thumbnail—where they're detail-rich—if they can fit reasonably against the vertical run of the text. I've been bold and put the big clickable map at the top, not the bottom, of the "Definition" section (which alone is better in a large range of window-widths, I think) and enlarged the tiny displays of three very intricate maps in the same section.

Revert if you wish, but is there in feedback on this?

I'd also like to go through making quite a few more images a little larger, and shifting lefts to rights where it seems to work. May I do that? Tony (talk) 09:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

We're using big images when they need to be bigger. If there is nothing to be gained, there's no point making them bigger. If a reader is interested, they can click through to see it on a scale they could not see on this article. If they're not interested, an intrusive image won't help, and may disrupt reading on different monitor sizes. This article currently has large issues regarding image placement and overlaps on my small monitor, so it's likely worse for those with widescreens. I also don't see where images would benefit from being moved to the right. On the contrary, there's a huge deal of right alignment already. CMD (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The right–left thing is messy in some places, and squashes text between them on narrow window-widths. Are you taking into account that readers use a large range of window-widths?

I don't see what is intrusive about a 240px image vs a 220px image. The more important problem is that some of the images are tiny given their rich detail—that makes them purely decorative, not informative. Those with slow connections can wait considerable time to access the larger original page for an image, and those with smaller screens can have difficulty in seeing original images, which are sometimes huge? The image here, squashed down to 160px, is dysfunctional, although it might be pretty in a postage-stamp sense. What on earth the subject is can't even be squinted at, and the caption has three words per line, which is very ungainly. If there's a problem fitting pics in at functional size, there are too many pics. Tony (talk) 02:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

When the left-right format is squashing text, that's a sign that there are too many pictures in that section. I noted the different window widths in my post. You can argue 240 vs 220, but you could do the same for any small increments. In the end, it's a sliding scale which is being moved from the default, and 20px is not going to grant a great deal more detail. If you're worried about those with slow connections and those with smaller screen, then don't make this page take longer to load and have larger pictures. If they click through, they won't get the whole image if it's massive, but a scaled down version. That picture you posted is as you note, 160px, which is smaller than the default 220px, so it's easier to argue to expand it. In that case I would agree, although there must be a better image of the mongol invasion out there. As you note, there are indeed too many pictures. CMD (talk) 10:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this topic presents an embarrassment of riches, and the temptation is always to shove more and more beautiful images in. Can we do an audit? (BTW, this is a significant problem for many key settlement articles, too, although usually 10–20% of the pics are a bit tawdry anyway, and no one blinks at their removal. Tony (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC) For example, a quick look now and I'm thinking of the following issues: Stonehenge is not working for me at all at that size (looks like the Chicago night skyline); Ggantija, maybe, but it's not in focus when you go to the original version, has no information there, and the reference to it in the text doesn't even use that name; the sky disk is stunning, but at that size could be from my dinner-plate collection next to the sink. I do think a more obvious supportive relationship between text and images should be considered; at the moment it looks like a grab-bag of choices. What do those images say about prehistoric Europe? It's hard to know what to do, but it's not working at the moment, is it. I note that there's a direct link to the main article on this topic, where these images could all be displayed at functional sizes. If I had to ration and make a decent size, both on the right side (where there's less danger of squashing the text with varying window-widths), I suppose I'd go for Stonehenge (a better pic??), and Vinca ... structure and art. That would contrast nicely with Apollo just below. I find the maps a real problem when tiny: they're just saying to the readers, "Hey, we have a map, but you'll need to go somewhere else for it". So why put it there at all? Accessibility issue, too. Tony (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

An audit sounds like a good idea. My issue with all right aligned images is that they will end up simply lying on top of each other, which isn't visually appealing and also creates the impression that they are separate from the text which they're meant to be supporting. I like maps, but as you say, they're little use unless they're very large. This article definitely has too many, as we don't want it to be a gallery of maps.

Anyway, I agree with your notes on Prehistoric Europe. I'm sure there'd be few objections to you making those changes. In the meantime, if you want an audit and have time to search for images, you should go ahead below. You'd be doing the article a favour. CMD (talk) 12:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Would be good to set this image to the language section. Vrkach (talk) 07:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction in historical definitions

In "Etymology", it says that "Europe" once meant "the sphere of influence of the Western Church" (specifically excluding Russia), with the expanded definition only developing in the 19th century. But in "Definition", it says that the problem of defining Europe was finally resolved in 1730 (i.e. early 18th century). Iapetus (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Peninsula? Really?

Are we sure Europe is considered a peninsula? The only reference cited in this regard in the article that possibly suggests this is No. 19, the MSN Encarta article on Europe, and the only time it does this is when it says "the peninsular nature of Europe ...". Not only is that not the same as actually calling it a peninsula, is Encarta really that credible?

I've looked myself, but I haven't found any credible source as of yet that calls Europe a penisula. As such, unless someone can, I suggest removing any references to Europe being a peninsula from the article--The Talking Toaster (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

That is a little odd. By the same logic that makes Europe a peninsula, so might all sorts of huge land masses be termed peninsulas. (South America? Sub-Saharan Africa, maybe?) It hadn't occurred to me that anything as large as Europe, with its myriad peninsulas, could itself be a peninsula, but maybe someone knows of another source. I agree that Encarta is a sub-optimal source (as would be Britannica or any other tertiary source). Rivertorch (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I've seen Europe described as a peninsula several times. I think Barry Cunliffe does so in Europe Between the Oceans: 9000 BC-AD 1000, for example. Iapetus (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't class it as a peninsula; as the above states, if you start calling Europe a peninsula you'll never end. Africa is "technically" a peninsula and so is South America. We should be calling it a continent.
The definitions are "A piece of land that projects into a body of water and is connected with the mainland by an isthmus." or "a narrow strip of land projecting into a sea or lake from the mainland". Europe is the mainland from which peninsula's project, so shouldn't be refereed as a peninsula. It should be referred to as a continent: "one of the principal land masses of the earth, usually regarded as including Africa, Antarctica, Asia, Australia, Europe, North America, and South America."
--Rushton2010 (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)]

ALSO Europe is not just one landmass: Ireland, Iceland, The UK, Cyprus, Malta and countless other islands are all core parts of Europe- so it cannot possibly be a peninsula.

--Rushton2010 (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, if you wanted to get technical, the definition says "into A body of water" and "into A sea or lake"... the main landmass of Europe isn't surrounded by one single sea, but countless: The Black Sea, the Med, Agean, Adriatic, Tyranian, Atalantic, North, Arctic, Baltic etc. etc. etc.

--Rushton2010 (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Be the same standered the Scandinavian Peninsula isn't a peninsula because its surrounded by multiple seas, and has some islands. Same with the Baja California peninsula and the Arabian Peninsula. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd vote for all references to it as a peninsula to be removed.

These all say Europe is a peninsula: [11] [12] [13] [14][15]. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Irregardless, Europe as a Continent (which is what this article is about) cannot be a peninsula without excluding The UK, Ireland, Iceland, Malta, Cyprus, etc. etc. etc. (and I think they'd be very surprised to suddenly find they do not belong to a continent because wikipedia says so...) The mainland mass (at a rather large push) could be referred to as a peninsula (the same large push that calls Africa a peninsula)... but to call the entire continent a peninsula is wrong. It is a continent and should be referred to as such. --Rushton2010 (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Climate Change?

The article states that Neanderthals died out in Europe "probably due to climate change," with a cite after the next sentence that seems to go to the National Geographic Atlas of the World. To me, the climate change language doesn't match up with material in the article on Neanderthals, and there should be a better source for it than a world atlas.Arnold Rothstein1921 (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The references to National Geographic in the history section were added by Hemlock Martinis. They refer not to the atlas but to the National Geographic Visual History of the World (that appears at the bottom of the references). The use of harvnb links would make it clearer. Mathsci (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Just as with the Atlas, it seems like the climate change statement should be sourced to something more specific than the Visual History of the World.Arnold Rothstein1921 (talk) 10:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Caucasus

Unlike the article in my native language, this article seems to avoid the controversy about the South-Eastern boundary of Europe by simply referring to "the Caucasus". Perhaps that is a wise decision - perhaps clarification is still appropriate. I always thought that de Greater Caucasus is the boundary, but Georgia, Armenia and Azerbeidjan all are members of the council of Europe, and several if not all these countries consider themselves part of Europe. Georgia even claims to be the craddle of Europe! Rbakels (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The history of the boundary is discussed in the article. The status of transcontinental countries and of countries like Cyprus and Armenia is also carefully explained. Some sources place some of these countries in Europe, others only partially. The English wikipedia cannot change that ambiguity and has to present the matter neutrally. Mathsci (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 August 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change the link for Ireland in the list of countries. It currently goes to the island. It should go to Republic_of_Ireland Edwininlondon (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. Nice catch! Rivertorch (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The 'Basque' Banu Qasi Muslim dynasty??? Basque nationalists have written this article?? First Banu Qasi, was a Zaragozan romanized Visigoth called Casio. Before the visigoths islamized Banu Qasi, Navarre and Basque territory belonged to the Christian kingdom of Galicia (called Kingdom of Asturias Spanish romantic nationalism from the middle of the century) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.61.34.230 (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Typo

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In Country list table, "Name(s) in official language(s)" replace "Lietvua" with "Lietuva". 74.95.186.108 (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Typo: "Svizerra"

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please correct the following typo: in one of the country tables, the italian name of Switzerland is spelled "Svizerra" instead of the correct "Svizzera" (I only saw one occurrence, so it should be straightforward to find). 134.206.229.163 (talk) 15:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Done with thanks, NiciVampireHeart 15:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

edit latvia's population to 2,008,700 (2013 october) 95.68.109.214 (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Technical 13 (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

kazakhstan and azerbaijan are NOT European countries

Since when kazakhstan and azerbaijan are European? So because they are in Asia i suggest deleting them from this article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.190.130 (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The most commonly accepted border between Asia and Europe follows the Ural river and the crest of the Caucasus mountains. Kazakhstan has territory on both sides of the river, as does Azerbaijan with the crest of the mountain range. CMD (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

[1] Lewis & Wigen 1997, p. 226

[2] "In addition, people living in areas such as Ireland, the United Kingdom, the North Atlantic and Mediterranean islands and also in Scandinavia may routinely refer to "continental" or "mainland" Europe simply as Europe or "the Continent".[21]"

[3] "the British use `Europe' to refer to all of the continent except the British Isles"

[1]

[2]

[3]