This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
Hello, i would like to discuss the meaning of independent state. Why did my entries of Pridnestrovie and Abkhazia get deleted? they is just as independent as any other country. Or is it supposed to be just de jure independent states? if so i suggest an edit is in order. Pure inuyasha22:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kurdistan is not an independent state. Pridnestrovie and abkhazia are de facto independent, while Moldova and georgia are de jure independent. all of them are independent. Pure inuyasha22:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transdnestria and Abkhazia are not states, as there is no monopoly on legitimate violence in these regions (see Weber). They are also not recognised. They simply "exist" in a kind of limbo. (Stpaul10:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Should there be a section on European immigration? Europe has always seen as a point of emigration but recently there is turmoil as Europeans are coming to terms with being a destination for immigrants. Htra0497 5th Jan 2006
I have to say that I find the edits on articles relating to Asia, Europe, Eurasia and Countries in both Asia and Europe to be lacking in NPOV. They strike me as much more prescriptive, dogmatic and normative than what is reasonable for a contentious or debatable topic like this. These users leave no room for alternative views with phrases such as "unsupportable delineations", "must necessarily", "by some undefined path", "now accepted worldwide", "the experts concur" and "side being ill-defined". And the recent edit displays sources smack in the middle of the text and not placed along with the other sources provided. Also, the namedropping of places like Morocco and New Zealand seems utterly out-of-place and irrelevant to the Caucasus-Urals dividing line. Unless something better is produced, either by DLinth or another user, I will revert to a more acceptable version and we can move on from there. Please discuss! :] //Big Adamsky19:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I apologise if it seemed like I was having a conniption fit (even nixing possibly legit edits throughout), but I thought these actions were clearly improper. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 07:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correcting the incorrect information about population figures
For a couple of days we noticed that the population figures of the transcontinental countries (Azerbaijan, Georgia, Russia and Turkey) are wrong according to the oficals odf those countries. We think that as Wikipedia- the source of correct information- the all population, area and pop. density should be added to the table, it would be more accurate. Please, let us know why do you revert, and maybe we can work together, in order to reach to correct information.
- Last person who reverted. Jan 12 Thursday 10:07
Au contraire. Said anon IP users maintained that Turkey or Cyprus are not in Asia and have made edits indicating that it is only in Europe – this is debatable and clearly POV. Said users also did so incessantly without any discussion, sourcing, or consensus. Said users then proceeded to change population and area figures for those territories, despite explicit provisos and links to apt articles/data, and without changing grand totals; thereafter, said users proceeded to change data for countries in the Caucasus too only after I suggested an equal treatment for relevant transcontinental nations like Russia.
The table is a conciliatory yet apt approach to reflect the duality of countries in said continents; the timeframe and links indicate sources/rationale for information included, with data obtained from various sources like the World Gazetteer, et al.
Importantly: repeated POV edits from anon IPs without discussion, consensus, nor sourcing are not conducive to building Wikipedia. Moreover, other POV edits from said users — trolling — have been reverted elsewhere (see above) and said anon IP users have reported. Until said users can garner consensus for said changes, the current version was and is valid. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea about the the people who are saying Cyprus and Turkey are in Europe, not in Asia, it is a general knowledge that they are in Asia geographically. But the population figures are wrong according the officals of those countries, also i checked the the source of those population figures, World Gazetteer, it says on an other page there is a city called Esenyurt in Turkey, but it is a small district in Istanbul. Also, in Turkey's pop figures do you consider Çanakkkale province in Europe or in Asia, it is on both continets like Istanbul. Also, there is no sure information about the European sides of Azerbaijan and Georgia in any source all geographers divide the two continents differently.
Thank you for you answer,
Jan 12, 11:29
Said users who repeatedly edit and revert without rationale/comment and using anon IPs, whomever they may be, add skepticism to said edits. All of this was happening in a condensed timeframe and there might have been collateral damage. :)
As well, the figures are not incorrect: they reflect figures from a certain timeframe and as indicated (with provisos). Arguably, any figure is dually verifiable yet inaccurate the moment it is published.
Ideally, the portions of Canakkale in Asia and Europe should be included in their respective articles. However, for this purpose, one can also reckon that it might be practical to include it in Asian figures since the provincial seat (and most of it) is in that portion, and statistics may not indicate otherwise.
The Greek Island of Rhodes is considered to be European. There's a pretty big chunk(in terms of area) of Anatolia that lies geographically Northwest of it, and thats considered geographically asian
Look at this particular map to see what im talking about
I would like to get access to more external links. Is that possible?
Melbrooks
Nakichevan-TRNC
User:Codex Sinaiticus, regarding our reveret-revert dispute:
Nakichevan "recognition" of TRNC is interesting fact and encyclopedic, but its place is not here. It is already mentioned on the Nakichevan and TRNC pages. In the "unilateraly cedded territories" list on the Europe page there are entities with "de-facto" control of their territory and no "de-jure" recognition by the other states. Karabakh and TRNC are also recognised by their main supporters (Turkey and Armenia) only. No other INDEPENDENT STATE in the world recognises these entities. Up to here we both agree, right?
Then, Nakichevan - an autonomous region of Azerbaijan (I am NOT disputting this) - adopted INTERNAL Nakichevan Parliament declaration about TRNC. But this does not mount to INTERNATIONAL "Recognition of TRNC by Azerbaijan". Only the CENTRAL AZERI institutions can adopt legaly binding documents in international affairs. So, maybe, after this Nakichevan declaration, the central authorities of Azerbaijan would LATER recognise TRNC. But currently they DO NOT.
I'm not sure I understand your argument. In fact, as you say, we don't seem to have any argument or dispute at all about these facts. We both agree this is the case. The only question is, is it encyclopedic enough to mention here? If consensus is against it, so be it, I just thought it made a neat footnote. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ural
I think territory of Uralic Federal District and its population should be also included to European area and population of Russia. Politically. As Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia etc. The district covers ural, which is home to Finno-Ugrians. Pretty much of them still living there and all administrative district has Uralic local languages as official.Elk Salmon11:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Geographically it's not in Europe. As well as Caucasian countries. But Uralic nations relates to Europe and spreaded over eastern and western ural. Permyaks, Komi etc lives in Northern District and Khanty and Mansi lives in Uralic District. Uralic district covers area that relates to Europe mentally, ethnically, culturally and nationally. Siberia and Far East populated by Russians that mostly moved there in mid XX century and by some local indigenous ethnic groups. Those are Asians. Elk Salmon14:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a point of view. Unquestionably, it's in Eurasia. What can you cite to support that the region is geographically in Europe? I can cite many maps and geographic sources that maintain it is not in Europe (as its western border lies along the crest of the Ural Mountains) and is, thus, largely in Asia. (Also see the article on transcontinental nations.) The map you've provided only demonstrates the linguistic commonality and divide of language groups in Russia (see below). It's just like associations of North America/South America and Latin America/Anglo-America, et al.: not all countries in North America are in Latin America. The same can be said of Turkey.
My point of view is comparing with Caucasus. They added to Europe because bordering with European countries by the border of Europe. Georgia because owns another side of mountains. So as Uralic Distric. Some countries also added to list because relates to Europe ethnically and linguistically. So as Uralic nations. Once they lived accross all central and eastern Europe together with Slavs. They have founded Moscow and many other EE cities. Now they accumulated into groups. Finns, Estonians and Hungrians in central Europe and Khanti, Mansi, Permiaks, Komies etc in their home lands in eastern Europe They relates to Europe. So points are: Uralic District own west side of mountains (border of Europe and Asia) and indigenous people are Europeans.Elk Salmon11:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But I think that the whole point advanced by Pluribus is that the continental dividing line is conventionally drawn along those two mountanin ranges, viz the Caucasus and the Urals. One could easily argue for it to have been drawn in multiple other ways for various purposes. And you are quite right in pointing out that ethno-linguistic world maps do differ quite a bit from maps of international organizations. But this article is not about language families or physical anthropology; these are simply different subjects. =J //Big Adamsky12:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC) See also examples of maps made by User:Aris_Katsaris.[reply]File:Map of skin hue equi.pngMap of skin-color distribution for "native populations" collected by Renato Biasutti prior to 1940.Current distribution of Human Language FamiliesMap of several regional organizations with non-overlapping memberships.
You did not got my point. We have to use version that show half of Gerogia in Europe because this half relates to the southern side of Caucasian mountains. So I have proposing to add Uralic District of Russia basing on same theory. Uralic Distric covers eastern side of mountains and covers area that considering European culturally, ethnically, linguistically. Elk Salmon13:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have, and disagree. You're talking about (splitting) a subnational entity that is arguably in one continent only, whereby we're talking about whole nations that clearly straddle both. And I still see nothing authoritative to support your position; until then or unless other Wikipedians agree with you, I think that's that. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how does it relates to citing sources? If you need to know administrative division of federation you can follow Subdivisions of Russia article. I don't see reason why subdivisions of federation could not be used. Elk Salmon15:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably, we already are using national subdivisions: the dividing line is commonly reckoned to coincide with the western border of the Uralic Federal District, not the eastern one. Essentially: if you cannot cite a reliable source to support your contention that (geopolitically) the Uralic Federal District is in Europe and that others can verify, that should detemine where/how/if it is included in Wp. Also, FYI: even the article/topic of note indicates "it is the westernmost of the three Asian districts." E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking not about Siberia or Far East. I'm talking about region that covers Ural mountains and some part behind it. Yet again I providedsource to support. It is main map on front page of article that showing what is in Europe and what is not. This map applyes one standard on south and another on east. Since that map shows too different point of view it should be corrected. Or east side of Europe should be extended to basement of Ural mountains (i suppose it just use border of Uralic District, which does not follow commonly known border between Asia and Europe). I see on south Georgia added to Europe and southern side of nountains stated as Europe down to basement. While border of Uralic Distric does not follow border between Europe and Asia. It is administrative border. Common understanding of border between Asia and Europe going by watershed of Middle Ural and foothills. about official Russian denotation about border between Asia and Europe.Elk Salmon22:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing has changed – we challenge your interpretation. Moreover, those of us who aren't fluent in Russian cannot possibly verify the information presented (which also appears to reside on an 'unofficial' website). Until you can provide authoritative citations that we can peruse that support your position – even with the above, you haven't – that will dictate the inclusion of information here. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Man, you do not listen me. I have two sources to back up my points. 1. Map itself on front page of article. 2. Article about Asia-Europe border conference, that says about border between Asia and Europe within 17km from Yekaterinburg. But administrative border located in 200km from Yekaterinburg far away to west of Uralic mountains. It means current version cutting huge part of Europe located until Uralic mountains. Btw, current version seems does not sourced on geographical point. Elk Salmon12:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I(/we) challenge the authenticity of these sources and your interpretation. I can't verify your assertions, so I defer to prior statements. And best efforts have been made to be accurate yet neutral in the article, which clearly states that definitions vary (e.g., I can provide references from the National Georgraphic Atlas of the World, et al. that differ from the above) and cross-references to transcontinental nation, so I see no reason to defer to your solitary position without consensus. Lastly, please don't insinuate your argument with references like "man": I'll be more than happy to listen if you say something substantial. Until then ... E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see you just trying to completely ignore what i'm talking about. OK. I start again, but from another side. Prove me that current version of figures in table based on geographical point, and not political. What about your sources to current version of figures in table that saying that it is all European Russia is included to those figures. After that, reread that article, and maps to it, and note bolded paragraph that quoting 3rd paragraph from resolution about scientifically proven geographical border. That article is actually wrote by proffesor who challenge position of monument, that situated within City of Yekaterinburg, and saying it should be in 3km to west of this position, but that article quoting original resolution and showing all border between Europe and Asia, and simply interesting source to read. Here is i found text with that resolution and picture scanned by someone. Elk Salmon02:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, you haven't proved your case. As for being ignored, in fact, our lengthy discourse above will indicate you've been accorded far more attention than necessary. I've already indicated the source/cross-reference for figures provided which, in turn, are derived from those in the online World Gazetteer, et al. And sources vary; the current version (with provisos) is a conciliatory attempt to accurately relay information yet not pander to POV. In addition, non-Russian Wikipedians cannot verify and authenticate the information you have presented. Lastly, you alone have proposed and maintain this position despite me and one other who challenges it. Until you can prove your case and a groundswell asserts otherwise, I've nothing else to say. I encourage others, however, to comment. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 09:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now, what I propose. Since current version in table also unsourced and totaly unacceptable. There sould be dividing by lowest political divisions (municipal district/city) to catch every district and every city that owning some lands in Europe to European population of Russia. I.e., for example, Pervoural'sk - city of 135 thousand fully located in Europe, but does not included to current figures, also Yekaterinburg itself (10% of 1.3mln city is within Europe) and other hundreds of provincial districts that shares Europe. Elk Salmon03:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all. Verifiability says - "English-language sources should be given whenever possible". It doesn't say it should be at all. It is also says "should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources". But you do not have any verified source that state where is geographical border located and which districts/cities located in west and which in east of it. If it is World Gazetteer - then please link where does exactly they state where and what cities located in Europe and what in Asia. And where does they define position of geographical border between asia and europe.? Russian language is official in Russia. Then, all sources I will provide will be in Russian. Elk Salmon11:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you took the time to read the links and provisos indicated (in the table, above etc.), you'd realise this is already stated. If you wish to insinuate your point of view, despite being challenged by me and at least one other Wikipedian, please demonstrate. You haven't yet.
Again. I may be stupid, but I can't find where does WG provide hwat is geogrphically in Europe and what is not. I even can't find explanation why does WG political division (Russian high level administrative [political] division) is in use and not UN, for example? Elk Salmon13:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) There is no such a thing called an "autonomous region" in Denmark. There is the "metropolitan Denmark" with administrative divisions named amter and there are also two self-governing territories of Denmark, namely Faroe Islands and Greenland. These are neither amter nor governed directly from Copenhagen but they are parts of the Kingdom of Denmark.
2) Jan Mayen island has no self-governance and it is not an "autonomous region". It is administratively part of the Norwegian county (fylke) of Nordland.
3) Svalbard was a "dependency" until 1925, when it was made a part of Norway per se Svalbard Act. The government of Svalbard is not self-governing and represents the central government in Oslo through a governor (sysselmann). However, because Norwegian sovereignty is internationally limited under Svalbard Treaty, the territory may be considered as a dependency. Behemoth 02.02.2006 02:14 (UTC)
Jan Mayen is not in the scope of Svalbard Treaty!!!!
Guernsey, Jersey, and the Isle of Man are not under UK sovereignty. They are the possessions of the British Crown. The only UK overseas territory in Europe is Gibraltar. Please don't make any changes in the article if you don't conceive this particular schism! Behemoth 02.02.2006 02:23 (UTC)
No argument here; thanks again. I've tweaked and truncated notions regarding these territories (e.g., removal of long-form names), to conform with simpler names for countries above – e.g., United Kingdom, not United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island etc... – and added notes to the table. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IATA "Europe"
The IATA definition of Europe (which I added) is fairly critical in the airline industry, at least. For just about any airline in the world, the word Europe on a ticket, in a tax, etc. means "IATA Europe", which oddly enough, includes places like Morocco. If someone feels that this isn't useful here, then please explain your reasoning so that the rest of us can understand, rather than just removing the text from the article without comment.
Hi there! Thanks for your note: that was me – my apologies for doing that without commenting, as I think I made other edits simultaneously. While not completely off-topic, the IATA list is an atomic scheme that largely overlaps with lists above it and – while critical in the airline industry – is without authority in this context. There are many such schemes classifying regions: an article/treatment about Europe, a fairly top level geographic/cultural concept, needn't contain every scheme from international organisations. To put it another way: would a visitor consider a definition of Europe in terms of the IATA scheme? Likely not. Morocco, which made a prior (unsuccessful) attempt to join the EU, is likely included due to the Spanish exclaves within its borders.
Perhaps it would be better to note in-text that IATA 'Europe' includes members noted in the above table/list with appropriate (few) exclusions/exceptions, in an 'Other definitions' or similar section (6.3) below and separate of 'Political divisions' (where it was placed), or – preferably – to include that scheme (with other regions) in the IATA or similar article? Until then or unless compelled otherwise, I see little reason to retain it here. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have two concerns here. First, you didn't edit the material in the way that you suggest, above. Instead, you removed it. Second, IATA is one of the most powerful standards bodies in the world when it comes to international commerce. They can and do define "Europe" for most travel and airborne cargo that moves into and out of the European continent. This definition affects taxation, travel costs, and application of cabotage in some cases. I'm not certain how that's on a par with "every scheme from international organisations". In answer to your question about expectations: I think someone coming to the general "Europe" page is looking for information on what exactly Europe is and while I think the most important definitions of Europe for this page are based on political boundaries and geographical features, commerce should also be represented.
Either way, throwing away the information that someone else has taken the time to research seems counterproductive, no? -Harmil04:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've apologised and also explained my rationale – I won't belabour this. Conversely, what's truly counterproductive is the addition of information or schemes that arguably muddy and add little value to this encyclopedic article about the continent: essentially, the IATA is one among many schemes and unnecessarily duplicates the list of countries and table further down. Should we also list European entities in the WTO, EU, Euratom, Schengen, Council of Europe, European Free Trade Association, European Space Agency, European Patent Organisation, et al.? TMI. Moreover, the IATA list was improperly placed as a subsection within 'political divisions'.
And nothing precludes a user from better placing this information elsewhere in the IATA article or in a more appropriate section/article with other schemes (as stated) – see here. And I remind you that "[I]f you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly ... do not submit it."
I encourage others to comment and, if so compelled, feel free to put this to a vote. But until then or unless there's a groundswell to support this, I see no reason to throw in the kitchen sink and yield. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know, there are countless NGOs (e.g. HRW or WWF), international organizations (e.g. UN or WTO) and multinational corporations (e.g. news networks such as BBC World) who will - for their unique purposes - divide their "world" into statistical regions, market zones or membership chapters. These multiple ways of dividing our world into arbitrary zones and spheres make sense in their respective specific contexts. But do they really add much to the understanding of a continent in a more general encyclopedic context? In my opinion, they don't; rather, they belong in the articles that deal with these specific contexts. Moreover, while some of these regions may for convenience be named after a continent, they hardly define continents. For example a news network or newspaper may find it useful to sort their stories according to regions. But if one such region is called "UK" and another is called "Europe", does this have the drastic effect that we should regard the UK as no longer being a European country? I think not; in that case "Europe" is used to mean continental/mainland news stories as opposed to domestic news from the UK. The same would go for similar "media regions" such as "Asia", "Africa", "Asia-Pacific" or "Australasia", which may or may not cover the actual corresponding geographic areas for which they are named. //Big Adamsky12:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
UK not in Europe
Wikipedia has include UK as a part of Europe, which is what most people would expect. I have howover noticed most media separate Europe and UK, which leave me scratching my head. See here [1] Nobody is going to change that, so the best thing is to learn their line of thought. What the heck is the reason behind separating UK from Europe? WOuldn't that be an important info to include on wikipedia article?
Well, I personally think that only the UK public and media separate Europe and UK, not the rest of the world. Within the UK, Europe is just meaning the "continent". MikeZ14:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of culture you refering to? Beer drinking? Very widespread on the continent as well. English? Become pretty widespread as a foreign language too. So, what you're missing? The Queen? Bad example. The royal family is quite continental in its descent. So, nothing left except English breakfast. But, you can keep it! We don't want to adopt that! --Lucius197619:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, having a chuckle at that, although I don't see how one can scoff at a full-English breakfast. The Germans can talk - not only do they not have milk with their tea, they don't eat eggs before noon, or baked beans. Of course you are well aware that Britain is filled with a magnificent culture, one that has enabled it to do what Germany never has been able to do: conquer the world. Enzedbrit08:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Europe' as used in British media and press is a colloqial shortening of 'Continental Europe', nothing more.
Why is Ireland included in Germanic Europe? Irish people are Celtic in ancestry, and therefore should not be included in this grouping at all. Ronline✉10:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maltese people nearly all speak English. Are they part of Germanic Europe? South African people speak English. But are black South Africans part of Germanic Africa? Most Finnish people speak Swedish - which is compulsory in schools, just like English in Ireland - but are they part of Germanic Europe? Ireland's first official language is Irish. So, while English may be widely-spoken, it is not the national language (the Bunreacht lists English second to Irish). Ronline✉06:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Slavic Europe?
That is very POV, there is scarcely any connection between Czechs and Russians, or Poles and Russians, and there are deep cultural divisions between countries that were part of Holy Roman Empire in the past and followed Catholicism and those belonging to Eastern Orthodox Church, for example the usage of cyrillic. Also while Russia and in part Ukraine or Belarus perhaps view themselfs as Slavic, the mention of some myth of common "slavic" background is hardly the basis of identity for people of Poland for example.
This entry seems very inaccurate.
--Molobo08:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read what WP:POV is about. Your logic is inapplicable. Just the same, next thing you see an Ukrainian nationalist who will passionately refuse to be included in the sasme list with Russia. The fact is that the term exists and people use it and don't care about our internal disagreements. And no one uses Cyrillic Europe term; obviously, people don't care of this distinction. mikka(t)17:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Mikka please, present me a scholary work that claims Poles and Russians posses the same cultural identity. As to your remark about Ukraine-you believe Poland sits in the same chair as Ukraine when it comes to arguments about being classified as part of Russian sphere ?
"The fact is that the term exists and people use it and don't care about our internal disagreements."
For there to be internal disagreements you would have to speak about some shared entity. As far as I believe Poland and Russia are just like any other different countries when it comes to each other, and not part of some unified block.
--Molobo08:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What we're talking about here is not political links between countries or even culture in the "modern values" sense, but rather heritage. Poland is probably closer to countries like Germany when it comes to values and perspectives on life than, say, Russia. On the other hand, it is ethnically closer to Russia, and that is what the Slavic Europe definition is about. Sure, the whole notion of dividing Europe up into these zones is controversial, just like Huntington's civilisations are controversial. But, Polish people are Slavic, are they not? Russians are also Slavic. Hence, both countries are part of Slavic Europe. It's just like there is quite little in common between England and Iceland in the contemporary world, yet both are part of Germanic Europe. Another example is Moldova and Portugal - they are not only half a continent apart, but are very different in terms of income, way of life, customs, etc. Yet, they are both part of Romance Europe due to their heritage. Thanks, Ronline✉09:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But, Polish people are Slavic, are they not? Russians are also Slavic
Nope, first of all Poles were West Slavs, Russian were East Slavs. There isn't much to it since Russians were intermixed with various ethnic groups such as Mongols for example, and the you would have to find to traces of common things back 1500 years ago. Ethnically I doubt Poles are closer to Russia, since intermarriage between Poles and Russians wasn't very common for social reasons, while Russians had their ethnic mix. Secondly, while I don acknowledge that some people in Russia view the term "Slavic" as basis for defining their identity, it is almost non-existant in Poland since they are very different basis for identity. You said:
"What we're talking about here is not political links between countries or even culture in the "modern values" sense, but rather heritage".
Well I can't think of any shared heritage between Poland and Russia that we could fit into proposed. category. The only basis would be some linguistic traces, and the category claims cultural. In fact tere wasn't much cultural exchange between Poles and Russians that could allow us to speak about being unique when compered to exchange with Western Europe which was far greater.
--Molobo10:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact look at good description which is written in History of Poland:
[2]
Without question the most significant development of the formative era of Poland's history was the gradual absorption of the country into the culture of medieval Europe. After their relatively late arrival as pagan outsiders on the fringes of the Christian world, the Western Slavs were fully and speedily assimilated into the civilization of the European Middle Ages. Latin Christianity came to determine the identity of that civilization and permeate its intellect and creativity. Over time the Central Europeans increasingly patterned their thought and institutions on Western models in areas of thought ranging from philosophy, artistic style, literature, and architecture to government, law, and social structure. The Poles borrowed especially heavily from German sources, and successive Polish rulers encouraged a substantial immigration of Germans and Jews to invigorate urban life and commerce. From its beginning, Poland drew its primary inspiration from Western Europe and developed a closer affinity with the French and Italians, for example, than with nearer Slavic neighbors of Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine heritage. This westward orientation, which in some ways has made Poland the easternmost outpost of Latinate and Catholic tradition, helps to explain the Poles' tenacious sense of belonging to the "West" and their deeply rooted antagonism toward Russia as the representative of an essentially alien way of life.
I'm not claiming that Poland should be written into Western Europe or such. I am just noting that the current description of divisions is contradictory to what we see. In fact pushing Poland into a group that for most Poles is the object of historical despise, objections and resistance seems very wrong.
Simply the category written has serious problems when it comes to accuracy.
--Molobo10:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I propose therefore to either remove the POVish "cultural" connections with simply linguisitcs since there is little basis for claimis of shared culture or to delete this categories alltogether as they are multiple exceptions to them already, and they themselfs demonstrate little.
--Molobo10:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
please stop trying to tell us that Russia is the only Slav country. you yourself has said that Poland is western SLAV.... Why have Slavic Europe and western Slavic Europe? that's pretty much racist separation of Russia from the rest of Europe. Pure inuyasha00:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are confused as to my statements-they are many countries with populations that have some origins in Slavic tribes from thousand of years ago. However this is an ancient past and attempts to present such diverse and alien to each other countries under one banner is highly inaccurate.
--Molobo22:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
England vs UK
The UK includes Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, demonstrably un-Germanic areas.
Yes, I do see your point. For some reason, UK and Ireland, as a whole, have both been included on the map in Germanic Europe. The only really Germanic part of the British Isles is England. Ireland shouldn't be included, considering it is independent and has a Celtic language as its first official language and national language. On the other hand, the Northern Irish, Scottish, Welsh (and arguably Cornish) cases are a bit different. These areas have been significantly influenced by England, and English is very widely spoken (particularly in Scotland). Since the UK only has English as de facto official at national level, it can be argued that these areas are still "Germanic" - that all of the UK is part of Germanic Europe. On the other hand, we've included South Tyrol (an Italian region) as part of Germanic Europe. So, I think it would be good if Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland were placed into Celtic Europe, and Germanic Europe would include just England. It would accurately reflect the cultural and increasingly lingustic heritage of these areas. Cornwall is of course much more controversial. Ronline✉06:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The whole of the UK is English speaking and have been speaking English for as long as England has. The extent into Scotland and Wales had progressed in the centuries following the Teuton invasion but the same is true of England where Brythonic languages were spoken for centuries following the Teuton arrival. To say that the only real Germanic part of the UK is England is not true and is symbolic of an outdated Saxon-focussed Victorian view that has been long since abandoned by academics and historians. Ireland speaks English as its first language and Gaelic is co-official. English is naturally widely spoken in Scotland and Wales; English spoken in Scotland evolved there as it did in England, from the Angles.
If Scotland is included as Celtic and England excluded, this shows an anti-English bias; Celtic language in Scotland is restricted to the western areas and Highlands so why include all of Scotland? All of England retains Celtic culture and Celtic linguistic heritage in its place names. It should also be noted that Celtic revival in England has been advancing tremendously in recent years and this has been encouraged by many Celtic enthusiasts. It should also be encouraged on these pages to support those finding that heritage and identity. The views of above and below don't come with validity. Enzedbrit07:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bulgaria is certainly southern European, and certainly more southern European than Bosnia or Croatia. The culture is closer to that of Greece, than Hungary. (Stpaul19:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Cheers Anthony. Can I ask how we'd go about gaining a consensus on this. I think there are lots of things in this article that need, perhaps, to be looked at and changed. (Stpaul19:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks. The table and UN scheme is pretty down pat; where it differs (namely for countries in more than one continent), rationale and clear provisos are included. The only way to forego the current fairly neutral scheme is to propose a valid and comparable scheme for classifying subregions, and that would be nigh impossible given the various methods for classifying territories. For example: the UK is variably referred to as part of Northern Europe (a la the UN), Western Europe, and (to some) not even 'part' of Europe.
That being said, for consensus: you should probably note relevant/contentious points here first, discuss, compel, and make edits if necessary. Of course (as above), sometimes they can be non-starters and might be unagreeable. Your edits regarding religious notions seem fine, though unsourced ... moving Bulgaria wasn't. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland vs N. Ireland
Ireland refers to both parts of the island. As both areas are included in Celtic Europe, it seems pointless to name it twice... (Stpaul17:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Europe
Some of your arguments are moot. Europe is not a geographical unit, it is a political and conceptual unit. Europe is just a small part of the larger Asia continent and absolutely contiguous with every part of Asia. Remember the Golden Horde, Huns (Attila not Germans), Avars, Tatars and Turkic speakers. There is nothing in the way of geography stopping people from Korea moving slowly west to end up in the North German plain. So stop this, geographical Europe nonsense. Europe is lots of things but cannot be defined geographically. The only reason Turkey is in Asia is that the ancient Greeks called Anatolia and beyond easterly, Asia. At different points in history the whole of the Mediterranean area from Iberia to the Levent to Egypt to Morocco was part of Europe. Think about Roman times. But Germany and further North were not Europe.
I, as a Maltese person, do not appreciate being used as some sort of football for xenophobic purposes. The Maltese have their own language, an odd one to be sure, but it is their own, understandable by other people. The Irish speak English, are not Keltic but just had Keltic speech imposed on them by Keltic speaking invaders, a minority of people. The modern Irish are not much different racially and culturally from the English. The English can claim to be just as Keltic as the Irish or Scots or Welsh genetically considering that no-one really knows what the original Keltic speakers looked like except some highly subjective ideas of some ancient writers.
This talk is just an excuse to vent xenophobic and racist ideas.
What are you talking about? Rascism? Xenophobia? At least consider correct facts (and spellings). I think you'll find that the genetic difference is small between most Europeans, given that we've conquored and raped each other for so long. So it shouldn'tbe surprising that Irish, Scottish and English people have a relationship.
This section of the article refers to culture. I don't know what makes you think that Malta is a political football; I don't believe ot came into the discussion of Celtic Europe. But, nevertheless, consider this. In Ireland we do speak English; as do you in Malta (are you English). There are more Irish speakers in Ireland than Maltese speakers in Malta; both languages are official EU languages, albeit small ones. Yet surely you must recognise the rights pf smaller peoples to recognition in the broader European framework. We all make up Europe, not just the big countries.
You talk of a Celtic "invasion". In truth there was no invasion, just a migration. There was, afterwards, something more akin to invasions carried out by the Norse, Gallowglasses, Normans and the English. It was these actions, in particular the cultural genocide of the English occupation, that obscure the Celticness of the Irish (and Scottish, Welsh, etc.) today. Are you less Maltese because of the Norman, Sicilian, English, Arabic, Roman,etc., domination of your land in the past? Or are you less Maltese now that you're in the EU? (Stpaul15:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
"Linguistic and cultural regions"
I think all of this part (including "religious affiliations") should be taken into consideration for deletion or moved entirely to another page. The section is badly edited, includes controversial and/or obsolete claims, has facts that are inaccurate, cites no references, and depends itself solely on the legitimacy of a self-styled so-called European superculture hypothesis, which violates "No original research" policy and is starting to turn, unfortunately, into a farce. Behemoth21:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It should not be deleted. Whose "original research" would it be? I can't speak for any of the other editors, but I had never even heard of that article hypothesis you linked, so it could not likely have been "based" on that. The Official religion article has been meticulously researched from a variety of sources, and ultimately by editors who checked the Constitution of each country in the world. You might not like it, but it's verifiable and hardly Original research. What claims specifically are you considering to be "obsolete"?? And how could it be "obsolete" and "original" at the same time?? Too many different arguments, sounds like just grasping at straws to come up with any argument that might, work in order to suppress something you maybe find personally distasteful? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure you have never heard of the hypothesis. It does return no hits on Google either. See, that is what I call "original research"! The mention of "European cultural regions" on the grounds which language family a certain speech is classified into is "obsolete". I was referring to quite different things. I still insist this part is messy and NOT verifiable (who placed the Protestant (that is Reformed Church, I guess) population to the north end of Switzerland or created a "significant" Eastern Orthodox population in "east Slovakia"?) After all, this is an encyclopedia and contributors sure have the right to be prudent when such groundless claims abound and to request deletion or (rather) moving to another page. Behemoth23:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Latin Europe, maybe. Germanic Europe, maybe. But then came Slavic Europe (which is well-discussed on its own page) and, furthermore, Celtic Europe. Next is Baltic Europe. And also that bogus "superculture hypothesis". On the other hand, there lies some "statistics" of religious affiliation. I think this is too much. We must give an end to this. Behemoth00:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a little hasty to claim that linguistic regions are "obsolete" - much as they may not fit in with some people's programmes, they still aren't "obsolete" yet, and not even "obsolescent" yet... I doubt if you'll get any consensus of editors who want to move the section to a different article, because its relevant here (Europe) as much as anywhere. And you are still arguing too many different things. If it were really "original research" as you say, it wouldn't do to move it to another article. While the new "hypothesis" article you mentioned may or may not be OR, if nobody here ever heard of that article (it appears to be about 2 days old) how can you possibly use that to claim that this section, which has been combed over by numerous different editors, is "Original research"...?? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The section does require significant reform. But IMO it should simply move away from defining "regions" (whether cultural or linguistic or religious) and simply talk plainly about the languages, religions and cultures. Whether there exists a Germanic or a Catholic "region" is a matter of definition. That there exist areas of German-speaking populations and Slavic language-speaking populations, and of Eastern Orthodox-majority populations etc, that's a matter of plain fact. "Regions" is however an artificial concept, a flawed model of reality rather than reality itself. Aris Katsaris07:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Aris. The only "Europe" listed that seems to be culturally and politically significant is Latin Europe (which is deviated from its original meaning in its article through recent edits, in connection with the "hypothesis"), the "Germanic Europe" is merely localities where a Germanic language is spoken or "Slavic Europe" is where Slavic languages prevail. I don't think that linguistic data enables us to draw exact boundaries between "cultural regions". The religion part is also too much detailed and poorly edited. It may sure be moved to another page titled, say, "Religions in Europe" and its facts accurated with more thorough edits. After all, this article deals only with "Europe", hence an intrinsical article and must necessarily be confined to give superficial information. Behemoth10:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I approve of what Aris did with the info. But once again, I disagree / object to the proposal to remove the religions information from this article, as it seems now that was your real objective from the beginning - to get nearly all mention of religion off of this article. There's nothing wrong with having the detailed religions section on this article, as long as it is accurate; just because a minority (one user?) apparently finds it distasteful, does not mean it is irrelevant to Europe; it's certainly relevant and should be on this page. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes these are only linguistic divisions. And only in regards to origins(since for example Polish language has many German loanwords or even linguistic rules). The mention of some common culture should be deleted from that entry(I tried to explain why it is misleading on "Slavic Europe" entry).
--Molobo23:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Armenia and Cyprus table entries
I've made recent edits to clarify information for two transcontinental nations. Armenia (prior figures for which I misread, so forgive the strabismus!) and Cyprus, though having connxns with Europe and European IGOs, are part of Western Asia geographically (e.g., as per the UN scheme used for the table). To that end (and to not have entries wih null values in each column and back-and-forth editing), I have removed them from the table and enhanced relevant notes; of course, they'll be included in a table for Asia ... once I create it. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are using the UN categorization, you should include Armenia and Cyprus in that table. If you check the following link, you will notice that both countries are mentioned in the region of Western Asia along with Georgia, Azerbaijan and Turkey. So I don’t know why you exclude them from the table. Is it about having land in Europe?
No, we shouldn't. As the provisos in the table indicate (and as noted above), geographicsubregions are per UN classifications. Moreover, this neutral scheme has been adopted for other continental tables and content and in absence of any other salient or agreeable scheme. And the Lloyds IMIU scheme/map, which also notes east/west, isn't it: it is too esoteric and the map dually and ambiguously colours territories in various regions. Apropos, I'll be making rounds to related articles to reflect the above. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, for god's sake - bloody UN. I still think that using the most commonly accepted way would be preferable, but Wikipedia needs to be standardized, even though the standards may conflict with people's views, and the UN's view is probably the best place to get these standards. It looks like I'll have to take it up with the UN instead. (That'll be fun: "Some guy sues world over some map-thing" :D). +Hexagon1 (talk) 08:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know ... but therein is the problem: "most common" and "people's views" are arguably subjective. The current neutral scheme – which is rather devoid of sociopolitical underpinnings inherent in general notions of 'West'/'East' – obviates that. Perhaps you need ... The Interpreter for added advocacy? :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 09:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll write to the UN (just for an explanation, I don't have a chance of changing the system they use), but as far as this article goes, I'd say that sticking with the UN is the best way to do it for now. +Hexagon1 (talk) 11:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pending a groundswell of opposition, I've since nixed the redundant list of territories which is essentially duplicated in the table and brought over relevant notions to the latter; I've not detailed the political status of the various territories in the table but might later. Perhaps the column concerning population density can be retrofitted to succinctly detail political status instead. Of course, the article (and similar continental/regional articles) can stand for some reorganisation (e.g., re-ordering of sxns) for consistency. There you go! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 02:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to suggest an additional topic: Culture
The same topic is used for the Continent of Africa, and should be included in information regarding the "continent" of Europe, as well as the "continent" of Asia. If this cannot be done, then the topic of "Culture" should be eliminated from the information regarding the continent of Africa.
Central Europe
hey, there's no central Europe! Well there is, but it is called 'eastern europe' I wanted to change and correct it, but I saw that tag or what is it called, to better first make a comment here, than change things in it.
Well, politically eastern europe is the former eastern bloc countries, but by geography, it is all what is east of them. (Ukraine, Belarus, West-Russia, Moldova, Azerbaidjan, Armenia, Georgia). By the eyes of the big European powers, everything wich is after Switzerland is usually considered as 'east (or central-east) europe', since the Cold War. See here. So I made some changes. --VinceB19:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As above, I've restored the prior segregation/arrangement of territories, as per the UN geoscheme (and related notes), a neutral system which has been adopted for all continental tables/subregions and in Wp. The exclusion of Central Europe, which is actually defined variously as are other regions, is a regrettable circumstance but unavoidable given the above; however, it is included in the regional template at the base of the article. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Order of territories in section "Territories and regions"
I’m suggesting changing the order of the listed territories in the section "Territories and regions". Currently the order is Eastern Europe, Northern Europe, Southern Europe, Western Europe, Western Asia, Central Asia. That way the order is neither alphabetically nor geographically. After going westwards to Western Europe there is a jump back to the very east from Western Europe to Western Asia. Listing the territories roughly west-to-east would improve the readability. Therefore, I suggest change the order to Western Europe, Northern Europe, Southern Europe, Eastern Europe, Western Asia, Central Asia. – How about that? MikeZ14:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out, but I'm unsure the suggested order is intuitive. An alternate order could be: N,S,E,W, et al. Obviating any of that, ordering the sxns alphabetically – by continent-then-region (Europe before Asia, then...) – makes more sense to me; if so, this would merely entail (e.g.) moving Central Asia before Western Asia. And to order all the regions alphabetically would be slightly odd since the first region to appear would be Central Asia. If there are no objections, I will do at least the former.
Cyprus belongs to Europe, not Asia. All islands of the Mediterranean are considered European and I would ask the person who deleted my correction to restore it.
See the UN map in the references below the table. Also not all Mediterranean islands are geographicaly european... Armenia and Cyprus are mentioned in the notes as "sociopoliticaly connected with Europe", but because they don't have european TERRITORY - their stats are not included in the table... Alinor14:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cyprus must be part of Asia; they speak Turkish and eat kebabs there...
in a minor part of it that was invaded by turkey and isn't recognized as a state by anyone other than turkey.
besides, geologically europe and asia are the same piece of land.
Well, there are many different visions to what defines Europe. Some include Cyprus and some not. Wikipedia should not follow just one vision, but mention all. Therefor Cyprus must be included in the table, especially when other "western asian" countries, like Turkey and Georgia are included. One part of Cyprus is even part of the European Union, in the future most likely the whole of the island of Cyprus. So I would recommend to include Cyprus. Peter Maas15:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cyprus and Armenia do not belong to Europe according to UN subregions categorisation. The article clearly emphasises that it takes the UN categorisation as the criterion. Also, the two countries mentioned have no territory on Europe, thus they are geographically non-European. The situation of Cyprus and Armenia is explained in the notes section. It does not matter if both are Council of Europe members and Cyprus is a member of EU. If you object to the UN categorisation or the geographical boundaries of the European continent, you should deem these postulates as debatable. Furthermore, please face the labour to read the edit notes in the article and act accordingly. Behemoth00:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, in the same vein, Malta does not belong to Europe? Is that what you are really saying? Honestly now ! The very fact that you include Armenia in the countries' list but not Cyprus shows that you are not following both types of pattern.
basically, one could also say that geologically europe and asia are the same continent and a lot that you read on the subject on wikipedia can be political bias. this discussion should no be here and go to continent where you can see how political the subject can be in reality.
When you follow UN subregions categorisation Cyprus is indeed not part of Europe, but Malta is! As the Southern European region. So I agree that it should be mentioned on the Asia page and not here (in the table anyway). But I cannot say it (that the UN regions are used) is clearly emphasised, as it is only mentioned in small text below the table. Peter Maas16:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regions
What on earth is the basis of the regions into which Europe is divided here? "Southern Europe" including some of the Balkans (but not Romania), plus Spain and Italy? "Western Europe" including Germany and Austria, but not the UK and Ireland, which are in "Northern Europe"? This seems wildly idiosyncratic to me. john k19:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, what incredibly stupid regions the UN uses. Iran is part of Southern Asia, and Zimbabwe in East Africa. Given that these regions do not particularly correspond to commonly understood regional divisions, could we dump them and just have an alphabetical listing? john k10:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uralic languages
The subdivision of Uralic languages is inconsistent with the article on them, and only lists two of three groups. I suggest:
The Uralic Languages are divided into the Samoyedic langauges, with a total of about 30,000 speakers in northern Russia, and the Finno-Ugric languages. The latter are subdivided into the Finnic languages, spoken in Finland, Estonia and European Russia, and the Ugric languages, spoken in Hungary and Siberian Russia.
Europe for Americans
This article seems to be written 80% by Americans or generally not-Europeans. I feel Central-European: where is Central Europe? It doesn't exist. Austria has never been Western Europe and Hungary is not Eastern Europe so is not UK Northern Europe. Canadians I have as friends look on the map and say: this is Slovenia and for me it's east, Lithuania is on the north, etc... If Poland is Eastern Europe why Lithuania is Northern Europe??? Lithuania is more on the East and fast on the same geografical position of Poland. I think also it's not possible to divide Europe so simply: Europe is composed by historical regions and every region has it own history. I live in a city which is part of Italy, but until 1918 was Austria-Hungary: my region is still in Central Europe and not in Southern Europe! I can say the same for a big number of other regions. Then there are political reasons: for me and for Slovaks Slovakia is Central Europe but for Franch people I think it's considered Eastern Europe for two reasons: 1. is considered a part of a former communist state - 2. In France there is a different vision of Europe - as a Western European country France looks the countries on the East as "Eastern".
What's considered Eastern and Western Europe has changed. The term Eastern Europe was itself invented by Voltaire in 1731. During the Cold War all communist ruled countries were regarded as Eastern Europe regardless of geography. (DDR was Eastern, while Greese and Finland were Western:-) So definition of East/West must take account of historical context. H@r@ld20:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
a) I strongly suggest abandoning the U.N. Definitions. The notion of the U.K. as Northern Europe is nonsense, as is the notion of Spain as Southern Europe. The U.N. Definitions do not comply with common understanding. Western Europe includes both Spain and the U.K. While the U.N. Definitions look pretty and all, they are very misleading.
b) Central Europe should be listed. Europe has not changed to be wholly represented by "East" and "West" Europe, as has been suggested. This is one of those instances where local knowledge should supercede what is seen on C.N.N. :)
(For PoV reference, I'm from the U.K.)
Evropa: A Greek word?
The English WP states that the ethymology of "Europa" is Greek, while the Greek WP states that it is Sanskrit!
“The name Europe emanates from Sanskrit word "e'rev", that means west, in order to it distinguishes from the "asoy'" that meant east that is to say Asia.”
(Babelfish-translation of Greek entry)
H@r@ld16:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One of seven continents??
Sorry, but upon further examination and a dose of common sense, it's quite evident that Europe is not separate from Asia. They're the same landmass. Culturally, they're different, but the last time I checked, culture does not a continent make. Why try to stretch and twist definitions to make an exception? Pride, in this case Euro-centrism, is the basic reason. This is really no different than Afro-centrists re-writing history to say that all advances in science, gov't, and culture had their birthplace in Africa only to be stolen by Europeans and the rest of the world. Sell that to somebody else, please, not me.Jlujan6905:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you find it a new idea that europes a continent then you're living under a rock. for most people it's a new idea for it NOT to be a continent.Pure inuyasha21:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How come Cyrillic gets a section but Latin, Greek and Runic do not? (Maybe even Arabic, considering Al-Andalus.) --Ptcamn11:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Runic??? Arabic???? you've got to be kidding me. this is a article on modern europe, not medieval europe. adding sections for an extinct alphatbet and one that is not used in the area you're mentioning is stupidity. Pure inuyasha00:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, Pure inuyasha remember WP:CIVIL. Ptcamn has a point. Why is the history of the Cyrillic alphabet outlined, but the much more common Latin alphabet not mentioned? Since this in the general article on Europe, I'd favour removing the section to a language sub-page.
The history section is rather weird - it starts off with democracy for some reason. No mention of the Neanderthals and stone-age cultures, the Roman Empire is barely mentioned, and the 1000 year period in which the basis of modern Europe were established is treated with a single reference to the age of migrations, likewise the world-wide expansion, and suddenly there's French revolution. Could somebody with a better background knowledge than mine rewrite this into a representative overview of European history? Zocky | picture popups11:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
we are european after that mistake of 550 years
I don´t khow if I shoud write in inglesh or in francais.
The answer is: I and others are europeans. What kind of pressuposition that I make a American music if in my mind I use de keys of the temperated sistem based on the development of a germany musician? And thats cruxis an bibles around?
I search who make that mistake and why. How can I live in that indian territory, conquest of a portuguais searching gold? We search gold today, in the same way.
One thinkness I aproach: The people who live in the eropean territory khow that the money thats its send to the controlers of the economic live in the territory of soult america continent its used to pay comissions of colaborators that stops the increase of conditions of human life in the places thats they live.
I´m shure thats what we, europeans who live in the america, must correct the mistake of ocupation of that territóry. We must go back to europe and try to develop a way that its interrupted for that mistake. It`s not to live out of poorest, but to live in harmony with us. With that kind of thinkness.
In the america, stay the natives, the indias. They, maybe, use guitars to explain the pain of living. But, maybe, they don`t want to make strings, to rapair. All songs thats sings, leave the indians, using chords, its a music of evangelization. Its the music of the war.
We, the europeans thats live in the america, will put a way to cross the ocean, back to our espiritual home, leave that garden, and contruct new gardens beside the routes. Its the reality of a people, like me, thats leave the childrens in the poor buldings, trys to safe our own skin. And I don´t will pray. We go back now. we go back, here.
New Map
There is a new map here(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cultural_Europe.png) that purports to show the "countries generally recognized as "predominately European" in terms of cultural ethos, languages and history". What was the criteria used for this? What is so similar between a Greek and a Finn ? I sense a xenophobic slant that aims to exclude countries like Azerbaijan, Turkey and Kazakhstan from Europe.
.png?lang=en)
Ronline ✉ 10:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Ronline ✉ 06:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Czech Republic is listed as Eastern European and 
Germany as Western Europe, whereas the more correct definition today is Central Europe (see Image:European_Regions_16.png. Shouldn't we change it? West/east is more of a pre-1989 definition, not really relevant in today's politics. +Hexagon1 (talk) 07:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
![[3]](/wiki/Image:United_Nations_geographical_subregions.png){kind=link}
