Talk:Europe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓
This is a candidate for the 1.0 core topics collaboration of the fortnight. Please see that page to support or comment on the nomination. We are working toward a release version of Wikipedia.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

Previous Discussions:

Contents

[edit] Size?

How big is Europe in square km or miles? Chiss Boy 09:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a number of the total area of Europe at the bottom of the chart, but is it accurate? Europe has over 10,000,000 sq. km? It's supposed to be only a little larger than Australia (the smallest continent), which is slightly smaller than the contiguous USA (minus Alaska and Hawaii). The figure doesn't seem accurate. Just a heads up. Chiss Boy 10:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Europe (according to the most common definition) has a total area of about 10.2 million km² -- the figures in this article are accurate and somewhat agree with Encyclopaedia Britannica and other volumes. Relatively, it is somewhat larger still than Australia at which may refer to just the mainland (7.6 million km²) or may also include nearby islands like Tasmania (together totalling 7.741 million km²) and New Guinea), though only less than half the size of North America and slightly larger than the contiguous United States (7.825 million km²). A more precise area for Europe -- 10 176 246 km², or 3 929 071 mi² -- is indicated in the table below, which is the sum total of the countries listed in the table. Corticopia 17:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Europe

Many people consider Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania part of NORTHERN Europe (geographically and culturally) and NOT part of Eastern Europe. The "Eastern" connotation came after WWII during Soviet occupation times. I suggest you change this Wikipedia listing to this distinction.

According to UN classification they are a part of Eastern Europe. Historically thouse countries (especially Lithuania) were connected to Poland and Belarus, not those countries of Northern Europe. I understand though that you dont want to belong to one category with Russia, but it is historical fact.--Nixer 11:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, please consult the UN scheme for sub/regions, which clearly places the Baltic republics in Northern Europe. That's not to say that they are not commonly included in other reckonings for Europe -- i.e., Eastern Europe -- but, then again, almost all of the remainder of Europe can be classified in Western Europe using obsolete Cold War methodology. This is not useful for the current purpose. Anyhow, the supporting notes clearly allow for various viewpoints (i.e., "the following territories and regions may be subject to various other categorisations"). Cogito ergo sumo 12:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Estonia has cultural connections to Sweden, a northern European country. The other two, Lithuania and Latvia, are definitely part of eastern Europe. It isn't inherently bad to be eastern European. This smacks of the Georgians or Armenians who got into such a huffy that at least part of their countries are in Asia, and thus they can be Asians, too. The Baltic states were also ruled by the Russian Empire before World War 2. Chiss Boy 10:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how Estonia or Latvia have connections to Belarus or Poland other than a brief rule by the Polish-Lithuanian empire (only in the Southern part of Estonia) and being in the Soviet Union (which was NOT voulentary, the Baltic states were occupied during World War II until they regained independence). Estonians are Finnic peoples, they speak a language similar to Finnish. Latvians and Lithuanians are Baltic peoples, not Slavic as some suppose. Latvia and especially Estonia were ruled by Sweden, Denmark and the German order in history, the Baltic nations were in the Hanseatic league and currently, Latvia and again, especially Estonia have more connections with the Nordic countries, culturally (even as little things as the Northern European Midsummer celebrations), lingually (Estonian to Finnish), historically, and above all - economically. Estonia had a population of Swedes living there until World War II when they had to escape invading Soviets. Estonia is even part of the Nordic Battalion Group and shows interest in joining the Nordic Council. Religiously, Lithuania is predominantly Catholic (as Central European nations) and Estonia and Latvia are Lutheran (as the Nordic countries). Russia and Belarus are Eastern Orthodox. Sfdsdfds 15:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

How economically? All the Baltic states, including Estonia, have economies more similar to OTHER eastern European countries than to western or northern European ones. Chiss Boy 10:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The UN is a political organization with an agenda, I propose using the CIA Fact Book, which is academic in nature--Caligvla 05:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah right. The CIA is inherently academic...--Tekleni 09:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


The CIA's Clandestine Services are actually a very small part of the organization, the majority of what the CIA does is fact and information gathering, the Fact Book is part of the Library & Reference Publications section of the CIA it has an academic charter. It is often defered to as the final authority on any matters it covers, contact just about any university lib. to confirm--Caligvla 21:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


Not more of that "the United States is fascist" conspiracy stuff. Chiss Boy 10:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

try not to confuse the NSA with the CIA, the NSA is a policy making body not the CIA.


Ah, yet another mysterious sockpuppet.--Tekleni 21:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

nope it was me! I switched from my laptop to my desktop and forgot to log in, hehe...--Caligvla 21:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chapter Biodiversity

Please correct the bad joke naming amphibians as "herbivores"!! -- Fice, 5 October 2006

Adult amphibians are indeed mainly carnivorous, but larval amphibians are mostly herbivorous. Herbivorous larval anurans can be the dominant grazers on aquatic algae [1]! I will change it into larvae. Peter Maas 15:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PROTEST!!!! EtymologIC CENSOR BY WIKIPEDIA

I Could Not Find Here Anymore The Exact Roots Of Word "Europe". That It Has Been Once Placed Here As It Was A Derived Name From Sami Languages.

Europe Reflects Being Western In Sami Languages. As Spelled "A-R-B" Or "G-R-B". Here Now, We Can Only Get Explanations From Greek Derivations Of Origin.

Who Could Ever Be That Replaces Or Hides That Information? (Suggestion: A Broad-Face) Alternatively, Please Tell Me What You Name That Process.

I Hope That I Have Lost My Research Ability Otherwise, I May Think Wikipedia Misleads Free Media.

Pro'blame' Here, Is Not Hiding Etymology But Changing It.

Rew: Europe: A Greek Word? The English Wp States That The Etymology 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@Ld 16:35, 19 June 2006 (Utc)

Friend.. They Do Not Mislead Media. They Hide Facts That Has Been Placed Once Here As You Point Out. There Is A Censoring Mechanism For Constructing A Brave New World Here. Let Us Vote For Protest

GULTEKIN M.GUMUSYAZICI

Actually there is a further alternative to etymology of Europe, but this has been discarded as unacceptable because it damages IET orthodoxy and Greek nationalist sensitivities. It has been illustrated in several studies that Greeks are migrant populations that arrived in the area they occupy today sometime about 1200 years BCE. By this time the Israelites had already embraced sea trade routes that would eventually reach to Iberia and beyond. It is not inconceivable that on arriving in the area the ancient Greeks encountered Israelite trade outposts already present in the area. The visualized conversation between two mutually unintelligible speakers is probably not all that difficult, and some of the questions would have been logical and accompanied by much impromptu sign language and pointing. For the Israelites, who are prohibited from setting up colonies outside of the Promised Land, the only recourse was to indicate their general identity, which is neither that of Israel (this not being in use until Davidic Kingdom), nor tribal identity (this being associated only with lands in the former Canaan), and therefore they would have indicated that they were Evri, the general reference to Israelites as descendents of Abraham. The phrase for this is Evri-po meaning Evri be here. The identification of Jews as Evri is still present in the Slavic language. The use of Evri-po transcended into Evropa Εὐρώπη Eurṓpē, which is the word used by Hellenes. This change is not unexpected in a culture where language is transmitted without the benefit of writing, and therefore vowels are easily corrupted. --Mrg3105 07:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Mrg3105's explanation is interesting and worthy of its own wiki page. For the Europe page, it would probably be most useful to acknowledge that any search for the etymological origins of Europe will have to be entirely speculative. as demonstrated by the above explanations, these stories can and will always be used to support various political beliefs. the best that we can do is sketch out the various sides of the debate and make it clear that there is no absolute answer to such a question. avoiding the false and stuffy certainties of the Encyclopedia Britannica should be part of Wikipedia's mission.Fixifex 20:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, lets "make it clear that there is no absolute answer to such a question" --Mrg3105 10:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EUROPEAN FLAG

I just look at the flag of United States of America and I see there are amount of stars that Reflects the number of states bordered in use.

Now, I want to know which states are reflected in the flag of European Union. Is there any exact definition for European Union by own flag. Alternatively, does it not cover whole Europe continent? (Though there are no strict borders).

For information on the European flag see European flag. Although the flag is most commonly associated with the European Union (EU), it was initially used by the Council of Europe (COE) and was intended to represent Europe as a whole as opposed to any particular organisation such as the EU or the COE. The stars does not represent the number of member states. Why it is the number of 12 is discussed on the European flag page. Therefor the borders are very strict, as the the European Union has strict borders, as does the Council of Europe (the borders of the member states). Peter Maas\talk 09:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

'Guadeloupe is an archipelago located in the eastern Caribbean Sea at 16°15′n 61°35′w, with a total area of 1,780 square kilometers (687 sq. Mi). It is an overseas département (département d'outre-mer, dom) of France. As with the other doms, Guadeloupe is also one of the twenty-six régions of France (being a région d'outre-mer) and an integral part of the republic. As part of France, Guadeloupe is part of the European Union; hence its currency is the euro[1]. Guadeloupe is however not party to the schengen agreement.'

Can you please define what that flag has been designed for.?

If there exist no accepted state for that imaginary foundation, (actually it is only an agreement), Would you please keep it clear waste paging from earths discussion.

I want to example that situation as follow. There exists no crusader union defined. Crusaders do never have a flag representing a united state to have a place in history.

Very good. Are you by any chance an Ali G character? Countersubject 16:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That has taken long time correct it grammatically

"There exists no crusader union defined!" bravo! bravo! I have happy thought about being stucking at these defined crusader, for much great pleasure!

[edit] MAP?????????????

Why does the grey politcal map have Scotland (U.K.) written on it? No other countries, which are actually federated (which the U.K. is not) have the regions marked on them? What is so special about Scotland to merit a mention when other non-soverign regions and nations are omitted? This must be either removed. altered to remove the mention of Scotland or it must be updated to mention all the other regions of Europe!


UK is sort of halfway federated if you know what I mean. Scotland has a national assembly that has far more powers over its own affairs then the Welsh Assembly. For example, it has the power to set its own curriculum and make laws applicable only to Scotland. This has been the case since the Act of Union. Incidentally, the fact that Scottish MPs sit in the London Parliament is a major sticking point for many English as they wield disproportionate power in relation to English MPs.

--Jayau1234 11:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

But the point is that other regions are more federated than Scotland, and yet aren't shown as separate entities on the map. American states have more power than the British home nations--they have their own powers, which the federal government cannot legally rescind or take away, yet often the United States is shown as a single solid color without showing any member state boundaries. Chiss Boy 10:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canary Islands

There is a big problem with those islands, Southern Europe or Northern African according to the UN?? The present article is based on the second, but the wiki article for Southern Europe includes the islands and the wiki article about NA excludes them. What to do...?

Bold text== Why can't Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia be listed? ==

Yes, I know they're part of an another country, but still, if they have de-facto control over their territory, why can't they be listed in the table? They're basically independent, but they just lack recognition. They could be listed as this Transnistria (Moldova)! This could help people learn about these mostly forgotten conflicts!

It is a matter of how the United Nations recognizes it. If they are a part of another country, then why should they be listed separately? If they were to be listed separately, then what about Kosovo? ***Lindaige

[edit] Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Cyprus should have full listings in the table.

There are many definitions of Europe, and in some of them these countries are listed, so why must Wikipedia follow one set defintion? I think it would be better if Wikipedia went through all these points.

Why is Cyprus part of Europe? Isn't it in Asia? Only a pert of Turkey is in Europe, and Cyprus is much further away. If Cyprus is in Europe, then almost half of Turkey is too, right?

The countries in this table are categorized according to the scheme for geographic subregions used by the United Nations, therefore those countries, although part of Europe according to some definitions, are not mentioned in the table! Peter Maas\talk 08:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Geographically, Cyprus is FULLY PART OF ASIA. Since this is about the European subcontinent, it is iffy. Geographically, Cyprus shouldn't be in this article. However, culturally, Cyprus is traditionally considered European. Chiss Boy 10:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] And another point.

The Aland Islands are listed in the table, okay, But why is it when I put the Crimea an equal automonous entity it gets deleted! I think the table would be more constructive if, you add regions to it, but by clearly stating that it is part of a country, but deserves to be acknowledge by this examples: Scotland (United Kingdom), Crimea (Ukraine), Sardinia (Italy), Basque Country (Spain) and so on.

I reverted you simply because it looked like vandalism, with a section reading: Interesting facts: "Yurop pwnz" etc. so if you want to change the article please at least do not bring in vandalism. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Recent table edits are being made without any apparent rhyme or reason, making the table effectively useless. As noted in the article, the entities currently listed are according to the UN scheme for countries and regions, while allowing wiggle-room for those territories that are also considered Asian. Psychlopaedist 12:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turkey is in Europe or not?

I want this topic to be clearly discussed under this topic. I find it silly to put Turkey in the list of Asian countries. Anatolian side of Turkey is geographically in Asia and the Thrace side is in Europe. So, we have to see political and historical relationships of Turkey. I want ask how many of you have seen Turkey playing in Asian football cup? Why is Turkey accepted to be a candidate for European Union if it doesnt belong to Europe? If the deal is cultural history then i advise you to see Turkish constructions in Greece, Bulgaria, Bosnia, Macedonia, Serbia or visit a Museum in Wien to learn if Turks have ever been there. If a religious seperation is the reason, i have nothing to say... I strictly insist on this subject and would edit the entries that show Turkey in Asia unless a offical document is posted here. Please do not come back with absurd maps, because each of them has different borders that supports their unrealibility. I do not want to paint my own and post here. Thanks alot for your contributions..

People, people, this discussion starts every time again here! Please read the article more thorough! Like with Cyprus, etc, Turkey is not part of Europe according to the United Nations geoscheme that is used here on Wikipedia. That is the reason Turkey is not included as European. But other definitions of Europe in the article DO include Turkey, it is even mentioned in the table! Peter Maas\talk 09:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
This has been discussed numerous times. According to the book The European Dream, it is technically possible for places like Morroco and Israel to join the EU should the Parliament choose to let them --Jayau1234 11:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Propose Protection

I just fixed several juvenile edits by some anon poster. I suggest making this article protected at least for the short term to keep it from happening again.

Black Rabite 18:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Ireland - religion

I've reverted the changes introduced by an anon IP whereby Northern Ireland was moved from the list of countries or areas with significant Catholic populations to the section of places with large Catholic minorities. According to this source 40,26 per cent of the people declare themselves Catholic. Hardly a minority of the population. --RedZebra 10:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

40.26% is still a minority (less than 50% is a minority). And in English, commas aren't used as decimal points. Chiss Boy 10:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Range of GDP - Czech republic is not the last

Somebody included range of GDP in the EU, stating that czech republic was last. Brief look into the source shows there is many other EU countries that are lower on the list (Poland, Slovakia, ...). The last one I found was Latvia, so I changed it to it. Can anybody check the list whether I haven't overlooked something? --Jan.Smolik 15:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed Latvia is the poorest nation. I corrected your small mistake though. --Madhya Prade sh 17:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I did not realize comma was not decimal separator. --Jan.Smolik 17:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
np --Madhya Prade sh 17:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Central Europe?

I have noticed that there is no Central Europe in the list of regions.There are many countries which don't belong in certain groups,and are supposed to be pur in C.Europe categoryy. Some examples: Serbia - Certainly not in South Europe,Austria,Switzerland,Czech Republic,Slovakia,Romania,etc. I would like to see others' opinions on this issue. Sideshow Bob 21:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you.--Madhya Prade sh 06:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
As indicated in the table/list of regions, with various notes, countries are listed and organized per the UN geoscheme. As such, per that list, all the countries are precisely where they should be. Psychlopaedist 23:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The UN classification is indeed a preferred solution, and probably the only viable option, not least because Central Europe isn't a clearly delineated region. Incidentally, one or two countries Sideshow Bob argues are Central-European are probably everything but Central Europe. The fact remains that this can of worms is best left closed. The article has a potential to attain the FA status and the last thing we need is to turn it into a battlefield. In the absence of other acceptable solutions the UN geoscheme is here to stay. --RedZebra 12:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What is Central Europe? My reply contributes to Europeanist geography by clarifying the mechanisms through which Central Europe is cast externally and internally as a place particularly imbued with culture and identity – a place whose integration with the EU and NATO represents its cultural ‘return’ to Europe. Accounts of Central Europe often mention the intellectual aura and humanist credentials of the region’s political elites. My empirical focus is on Central Europe, defined here as the 12 states of the former Soviet bloc that acceded into the EU and/or NATO in 2004-2007. I use this term not to downplay the many differences among these states or to attempt a ‘representative’ account of them. I rather foreground a particular family resemblance among them – the marked reliance on ‘culture’ and ‘identity’ in foreign policy discourses. These countries are Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, The Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Slovenia. Central Europe is a malleable term. In the early 1990s, it generally denoted the three Visegrad states. Over the decade, as several other countries, such as Lithuania, Romania and Slovenia, started branding themselves as Central European, common usage of the term gradually expanded. Today, Central Europe connotes the east-central European states that acceded into either the EU or NATO in 2004 & 2007. While recognizing that ‘Central Europe’ conventionally refers to a more limited region, I use the term here because common alternatives such as ‘Eastern Europe’, ‘East-Central Europe’, ‘new member states’, ‘accession states’, or ‘New Europe’ are all considerably more problematic. Central Europe is also a politically loaded term. It frames the countries thus labeled as inherently European while simultaneously casting the countries further east – the so-called Eastern Europe – as culturally less European. In all 12 states, key foreign policy issues – especially EU and NATO accession – are legitimized not as much through the vocabulary of strategy and interest as through the notions of identity and culture. Their cultural capital is a constitutive part of geopolitical discourses in Central Europe. Central Europe is widely conceived both internally and externally as a place where culture and identity are especially important influences on state action. This conception frames Central Europe as a cultural entity and casts culture as a causal factor in foreign policy. ‘Central Europe … is a culture or a fate’. This cultural narrative is especially prevalent in discussions of EU and NATO accession, both of which are commonly cast as manifestations of Central Europe’s ‘return to the West’. ‘Europe’ and ‘Euro-Atlantic’ space as well as EU and NATO have come to function not as places or institutions, but as markers of identity. For Central Europeans ‘Europe represents not a geographical but a spiritual notion, one synonymous with the west’. Even during the accession negotiations that tackled everything from sweeping economic reforms to specifications on sausage manufacturing, foreign policy was discussed in terms of culture, identity, and western values. This is not to say that people in the accession states necessarily endorsed this bundling up of culture and geopolitics, but that public debates were based on it. During the Cold War, culture was an important site of resistance to what was widely regarded as an imposed nonwestern political and cultural system – Soviet or Russian. Indeed the very concept of Central Europe as it emerged in the 1980s was the product of identity construction by Central Europe’s intellectuals – not political scientists but writers and philosophers. Intellectuals played a key role in bringing down the socialist regimes, and Central Europe’s new post-socialist political elites include many of them.Madhyako Pradesh lo 18:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I really enjoyed reading your essay even though I can't say I agree with all the points you raised. In any case, I fear it's wasted here as Wikipedia doesn't allow original research. You might want to take it to Central Europe discussion page here on English Wikipedia, or even try its German counterpart where, if I remember it correctly, there was a debate on the whole issue. --RedZebra 19:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accession negotiations

The first countries scheduled to join are Romania and Bulgaria, they are not mentioned in the lead section while Croatia and Turkey are. I don't know the correct status of the negotiations but Romania and Bulgaria should be mentioned first. Can someone fix this? Piet | Talk 14:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Apparently, this bit was left out of the introduction some time after Dec 1. --RedZebra 15:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seven continents

From what I've been able to find, Antarctica is considered to be "inhabited" as there is a permanent population, approximately 1 000 people year-round and up to 4 000 in the "summer". Based on that, I've changed the lead sentence from "Europe is one of the six inhabited continents of the Earth." to "Europe is one of the seven continents of the Earth.". --Ckatzchatspy 23:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. Psychlopaedist 23:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Sorry, I forgot to add in my post that I had checked through the archives, and didn't notice any controversies with regards to describing Antarctica as inhabited. Lots of discussion as to whether Europe is a continent, but that's a whole different matter... --Ckatzchatspy 00:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Great. I recently revised the lead to read 'seven' from 'six' -- while what constitutes a continent is largely a matter of perspective (which that article needs to do a better job of explaining), the implication that it is one of just six is rather Eurocentric (i.e., implication that Europe and Asia are separate continents (q.v. Eurasia), while America is not). I, too, contemplated revising it again as you did given your argumentation above. Anyhow, thanks! Psychlopaedist 00:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Antarctica doesn't have much of a natural increase of population (babies being born there). Nor do most VISITORS settle down on the continent and make that place home. It hardly counts as inhabited any more than space is inhabited by humans (because of the ISS and Mir before that). And Eurasia should be considered a continent and North America and South America as separate continents--just look at a map--Eurasia is one large landmass connected to Africa by an ithmus. North America and South America are two large landmasses connected by an ithmus. The preceding sentence is opinion. Chiss Boy 10:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cyrillic Alphabet

I think the Cyrillic alphabet should be moved out of the Slavic languages section since there are Slavic languages written in Latin script and non-Slavic languages written in Cyrillic.--Planemo 22:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Arabian plate belongs to Europe

If Asia can include the Indian plate, then why doesn't Europe include the Arab one? Each subcontinent is responsible for massively global culture divisions. Just look at the Abrahamic religion article. After all, the divisions between Europe and Asia are supposed to be based on biogeography and not plate tectonics. The funny thing is, that the Arabian and Indian subcontinents form this demarcation, through their ancient influences. Asia is not bigger than it really is. Geographic terminology should reflect culture, at least in differentiation between Europe and Asia. Europe and Africa have the most intimate relationship with the Arab region, but the Asian and Australian continents and their people have little or no such connections. Perhaps the confusion arose from Asian hordes conquering what is never called "West Asia" in conversation, but is written that way. Some mixed society arose with the Ottoman Empire, but who doesn't know the original name of Istanbul? Can we get some intelligent, well read contributors here who know the Levantine intermixture with Greco-Roman and Egyptian foundations is grounded in reality and not just Hollywood? Maybe I as a Christian should "forget" who the Three Wise Men were, if that is what others want in their ignorance. They were not Indian or Chinese in any form or fashion, but Western as my own bones. No land that was part of the Roman Empire could be "Mongoloid" or Asian in that Pacific sense. Perhaps such Asianists should look to the Indians of the Americas, instead of co-opting my ancient heritage for their own. Rhode Islander 04:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Continents should be considered GEOGRAPHICALLY, which you apparently don't have an accurate definition for. Europe is obviously not a continent--its border with Asia is far longer and more ambiguous than the ithmuses which divide Eurasia from Africa and the TWO American continents, and definitely more ambiguous than the ocean which separates Australia and Antarctica from other continents. Continent shouldn't be a cultural term. In that case, the two American continents and Australia would be part of Europe. Chiss Boy 10:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Europe is a subcontinent in reality and there are actually a lot more simularities between non-eastern Asia than meets the eye. This is easily seen in the fact that Indo-Iranian cultures and language have a common heritage with the Greco-Romans (Indo-European languages and cultures). Geologically Eurasia is one continent. Zachorious 22:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a Nazi theory. Rhode Islander 22:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Are you feeling alright? Check out the Indo-European article if you are confused. Zachorious 23:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That is a theory advanced during the Darwinian era, which paved the way for a lot of unpleasant political situations. Rhode Islander 23:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't make Creationists look as though they are idiots.
Yes, do that! You'll get 103 PoHR (Points of Honorary Rhetorics) from ME. (Giggering evilly, does:) Rursus 12:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Zachorious brings up decent points. Indo-European languages are related. It is obvious that Eurasia is (at least geographically) a continent--Europe isn't. Both points aren't particularly Nazi ideology, at least not much more than Nazis believed apples grew on trees (which they do--that's the point). Chiss Boy 10:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] States of Europe

I know that there is a link to countries of Europe, but why isn't there an actual list - especially as the languages are listed. Both or neither?

Jackiespeel 19:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irish Religion

In the religion section Northern Ireland is described as being majority catholic while the Republic Of Ireland is described as being majority protestant. This quite clearly a mistake. Northern Ireland could now nearly be described as being split down the middle religion wise between catholic and protestant the Republic is most definitely majority catholic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.94.149.73 (talk) 01:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] "The European Union also featured the world's largest economy"

In the third paragraph, the second sentence begins "The European Union also featured the world's largest economy ..." I do not feel that I know enough about this topic to edit the article but (1) why "featured"? - it seems an odd word, I don't really see where the "featuring" comes in, surely it just is or has; and (2) why is it in the past tense? Thanks, BaffledYetOddlyConfused 10:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably is a mistake. Featured, while it would make sense, is an odd word to use --Jayau1234 11:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
By the same token, NAFTA sports an economy larger than the EU. The article is about Europe, not the EU. North America probably has a larger economy than Europe (at least if Asian Russia and Anatolia are cut out), with the United States only a little behind the EU (with almost 200,000,000 less people to build the economy, too), and Mexico and Canada and Central America and the Caribbean can probably rival the rest of Europe. Chiss Boy 10:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] map

European cultural sphere of influence: countries coloured in blue have received the most influence from European culture, while those in green mix European and indigenous cultures.
European cultural sphere of influence: countries coloured in blue have received the most influence from European culture, while those in green mix European and indigenous cultures.

I have removed this map which is unsourced - who is to say exactly how much european influence countries have received? also, it does not include the ex-European colonies in Africa and Asia. --Astrokey44 04:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

What about the "western" cultures of Japan? (one of the most advanced societies on earth), Mexico? (south of the US a major cultural influence of Mexican social life), Brazil? (a high human developmental index, despite the poverty gap and inequal distribution of wealth), Israel? (the settlers came from Europe) and the few East Asian (China and formerly British outpost Hong Kong), and oil-rich Persian gulf countries adapted many European or "western" features? Not long ago (20 or 30 years ago) has the South Pacific islands became independent from European (British or French) rule. India and Pakistan are quite influenced by some degree of European influences, plus they are highly populated countries and like China and Japan, they are ancient civilizations. The map should included India and Pakistan shaded "green" at least, since they emerged to status as major global economic powers and both have developed nuclear weapons programs (they may use nuclear missiles against each other) in the past decade. 63.3.14.2 15:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Again, I point out the map has errors, and inaccuracy of what countries are direct or partially influenced by European culture. The flourishing and developed Asian economies of China, Malaysia, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand and recently, Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam joined the list (east Asia should be shaded "green" on the map, but Japan shaded "blue") are indications of the final stage of development in the Asian Pacific rim. In the 1980's and '90s, global economists dubbed the Asian Pacific economic boom, especially in Japan and later in China, as the "Asian century". However, the boom includes the nearly-developed and free-market countries in Latin America, mainly on the Pacific coasts: Mexico (quite prospered in the NAFTA free-trade bloc), Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela (not in the Pacific coast, but possesses oil wealth under the leftist Hugo Chavez regime). I support the claims on Chile or Argentina, esp. since 1990, had a high degree of European (or "Euro-Latino") traits: culturally, economically, politically and socially, the two South American nations in the western and southern hemispheres seem to leaned more to Western Europe. The same case goes to very developed, but small populated Anglo-European countries of Australia and New Zealand are western countries (correct) but yet to compete in the global market economy dominated by Japan, the US and the EU. + 63.3.14.129 17:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's the last comment to post. In the 1960's and '70's, the Middle East was on its' way to become a world power, such as Egypt under a genial military leader, Abdul Nasser and his successor, Anwar Sadat, created a major political force. Iran under a 3,000 year monarchy and the Shah regime was heading the course of "westernization" before the Islamic revolution of 1978 deposed and exiled the Shah. But since 1980, most Arab countries had never reached a pinnacle of economic perfection and prosperity. Only the smaller and densely-populated Arab countries with large quantities and oil reserves like Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE (Dubai) are ranked one of the world's most developed lands, except they have recently accepted the idea of representative democracy and moderate Islam in their theocratic governments. Lebanon was once seen the "Muslim window of the west" but since the title went to Turkey, also a secular developing country closely attached to Europe (and expected to join the EU in 2010 or later). And for Saudi Arabia, their puritanical Islamic tradition has heavily clashed with rapidly-changing culture influenced by America and Europe. I wonder how the Middle East may chose the path to "westernization" or radical Islam, this is widely tested in post-Saddam era Iraq where civil war broke out between various Muslim sects in the middle of US army occupation. + 63.3.14.129 17:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Surely, if we're going to be pedantic, then we could shade the whole world light green or blue. The old colonial powers of Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Belgium, The Netherlands and Germany controlled most of the world between them in the 18th, 19th and early 20th Centuriesto differing degrees; apart from North America [to a degree] and East Asia, the world generally uses legal systems based on those of the old European powers. The European sphere of influence is also huge today - fashion, music, food, architecture, human rights, economical models, etc. There is no point creating a map, as you could basically describe the European sphere of influence as "most of the world, excluding authoritarian states." —The preceding --JavaJawaUK 12:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)unsigned comment was added by JavaJawaUK (talk • contribs) 12:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC).
It is the American (USA) sphere of influence that is big today, not Europe. At most, that would only be an indirect European sphere of influence, currently. Chiss Boy 10:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The map should have been removed. The article is about Europe, not a hypothetical European sphere of influence. Chiss Boy 10:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Ooops, I was only trying to clean up the formatting of the page as it looked terrible. Anyone care to help out and put it all back correctly as I don't seem to have made much impact! 86.144.116.52 23:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Micronations

I think that someone should add something about the micronations established in Europe. It would be interesting to see what those are. BatzMonkey 02:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah...recently, a few radicals established a "micronation", the Republic of Sealand located off England in an abandoned oil rig in the North Sea, shows how nutty people can be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.3.14.2 (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Baltic countries

Why is Estonia a part of Eastern Europe while Latvia and Lithuania are part of Northern Europe? At the map on the page all three countries are shown as North-Europeans. (CPBai 12:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] misstakable about slavic language in saxon and brandenburg

This part sounds if saxon and brandenburg has a significant share of population which speaks a slavic language. The Sorbs (in german Sorben, serbja or serby in their own language) has only 60.000 speakers today. It`s of course an admitted minority in germany but in this text it can be misstakable. I think it`s better if we write "parts of saxon and brandenburg" that`s not perfekt but even better. You can see in wikipedia in the articel "sorbs" that I do not lie. Here is a link to the map which shows the parts of saxon and brandenburg in which sorbian speakers live today. sorbs Enkidu78 14. Feb. 2007

[edit] Cyprus is in Europe

Is it not? what map are we folowing? i know that Armenia,Azerbaijan,Georgia are at the same situation but they are not part of the EU, Cyprus is, so shouldn't it be part of Europe? It plays in the euro division in soccer, i could go on forever those are just a few examples, The people in cyprus consider themselves as part of europe, Couldwe make some kind of agreement over cyprus? should it be europe or asia? should it be divided on TRNC and Cyprus?

== Europe topic was messed up by someone! == Everyone, someone deleted all the content for "Europe", and posted some trash about their gf I think. So I deleted that and put in a short description. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CYoungBalla (talk • contribs) 22:55, 17 February 2007(UTC).


[edit] Map

Image:Europe religion map en.png The map regarding religion should be reworked. you can hardly distinguish prots from caths.--Tresckow 02:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated removal of Svalbard and Jan Mayer from 'Regions of Europe' list.

It has come to several editors' attention that some individuals are repeatedly removing Svalbard and Jan Meyer from the list of territories and regions of Europe. The parties engaging in this behavious have not offered even one word of discussion for their repeatedly doing so, neither here on the discussion page, nor even in an edit summary. They just silently blank it out each time it is re-added.

This is totally against wikipedia protocol. Instead of edit warring, it is considered vastly preferable to explain actions that involve content dispute, and all the reasons for or against them, here on the discussion page. So, I would like to give those editors who apparently do not think Svalbard and Jan Meyer are one of the parts of Europe, the opportunity to make their case in the space below. If they continue to refuse dialogue, this will be reported as run-of-the-mill vandalism, and administrative action against them will be requested. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe an offending editor believes that (per initial edit summaries, but despite notes on page etc. and parallel examples (e.g., Finland, UK)), Svalbard/Jan Mayen are "parts of Norway, no need for separate listing" and that "Norway has complete sovereignty, no need for separate listing." Otherwise, CS, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Corticopia 10:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Why are islands such as Portsea, Wight and Shetland not listed? TexasWalkerRanger 13:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Table per UN list of regions/territories; details in article. Corticopia 17:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
And yet the UN has no say in this matter whatsoever. Why are the Shetland and Orkney islands not listed? They obviously belong to Norway – you do know this? Why are the United Kingdoms, the German bundesländer or the Swiss cantons not lised separately? Stop making up this nonsense. Dagnabit 22:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps there is room for some clarification in the table, given the exceptional circumstances of Svalbard and Jan Mayen. All the other special case entries appear to be distinct dependencies or the like, while Svalbard is Norwegian territory which Norway has external obligations to honor under the Svalbard Treaty. While the need to report separately in some cases is presumably the cause of the UN and ISO designations, the question becomes whether keeping the separate entry in the context of this article is of net benefit to the reader. There should at a minimum be a footnote for "Norway" indicating whether or not the population and/or area numbers include Svalbard or not (a quick scan of the UN site indicates it may in the case of population, but not area). Perhaps the Svalbard and Jan Mayen listing could be included as a second line in the "Norway" row to solve the difficulty. I created and reverted an example of this here - the wording would depend on whether the Norway numbers include Svalbard or not. Having Jan Mayen included is an unfortunate complication - whatever the case of Svalbard, Jan Mayen really is similar to the examples that TexasWalkerRanger mentions above.

For those arguing against inclusion of this entry, please do not simply remove it, especially with edit summaries alleging vandalism. Comments such as "making up this nonsense" over a valid content dispute are not helpful, either. - David Oberst 19:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as Svalbard and Jan Mayen. Svalbard are Jan Mayen are fully parts of Norway and Norway has full sovereignty over them. They have no such connection as the other areas which are listed separately (and the reason for including them seems a bit vague). There is no way Svaldbard and Jan Mayen can ble listed, other than noting whether Norway's numbers include these areas or not. Dagnabit 19:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes: adding a footnote to Svalbard/Jan Mayen is a good idea, but why should we otherwise have to justify or overcomplicate this because a solitary editor -- and his anonymous IPs -- continues to take issue with it? Neither does this editor have a say in the matter, against the silent consensus during which noone really objected to this entry. As stated upfront in that section, the table/list is based on that provided by the UN ... and Svalbard and Jan Mayen are discretely listed. Both are special entities under Norwegian sovereignty that are recognised under international treaty, and uniquely governed: while Jan Mayen is governed as part of Nordland (point taken), Svalbard isn't a Norwegian county. This isn't comparable to the Shetlands (parts of the UK), but is more comparable to, say, the Isle of Man etc. (which is under the jurisdiction of the British crown), Aland (Finland). Corticopia 10:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
There are a clutch of IP addys through which this information is continually being removed (still); arguably they belong to the editor in question (sockpuppetry)? Thoughts? Actions? Consequently, I will continue to restore the anonyremovals until compelled otherwise, and others should do the same. Corticopia 18:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As I pointed out on his(?) talk page, Dagnabit's approach is not helpful, and in regards to the strictly ISO-related changes approaches vandalism or WP:POINT. Even under Dagnabit's own terms the simple removal here is destructive, since the land area and population aren't added into the Norway entry! Repeated removal by an established editor without useful discussion here is essentially edit warring, which Wikipedia has methods of dealing with, and I'd certainly support reverting anonymous IP removals on sight.

But that aside, the question itself is of interest. Jan Mayen does not appear to be a "special [entity] under Norwegian sovereignty that [is] recognised under international treaty" - there appears to be no treaty related to it at all (it was annexed by Norway in 1930), and it is in effect merely a plain (if distant) Norwegian island that is dragged along merely because (for whatever reason) it was included in the "Svalbard" category. By itself, Jan Mayen is a "Shetlands" case. As for Svalbard, presumably the ISO/UN has a need for a code for Svalbard in certain reporting circumstances - (travel movements, since it is outside Schengen Agreement, and things related to Svalbard Treaty obligations), but there is nothing stopping those using the codes from rolling it up into Norway where appropriate (see here). This might be a good case - we aren't reporting a table of "UN reporting classifications", and if integrating the entry into Norway best serves the article, that could be done. Perhaps a single Norway entry with "(includes Svalbard)" might be best, or a footnote "includes Svalbard"? As I mentioned, all the other special entries have autonomous populations or other quasi-sovereign status, while Svalbard does not. No offence to Corticopia, but the "not a province" argument seems somewhat moot, since presumably Norway could declare it a "province" (or "duchy" for that matter), as long as it ensured that it was in compliance with its treaty obligations. I have no objection to a separate entry if required, but it isn't completely obvious that is the case here. - David Oberst 20:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I only now noticed that this discussion has continued and that Dagnabbit has finally responded... I want to make clear that I do not feel strongly one way or the other about how Svalbard's status should be represented, David's proposal looks sensible to me, but no matter what is right, I cannot stand the unprofessional tactics used by multiple anonymous accounts to push their view of the matter. That is the kind of behaviour that leads to blocks. I wouldn't be paying any attention to Svalbard never having been there, but quickly learned from Wikipedia that by International treaty obligation, **anyone may go there without any passport.** Now I suspect that is the real information that someone doesn't want publicised, but it is backfiring because now even more people like me have found out. Don't worry, I prefer rather more temperate climates myself, so I don't expect I'll be packing my bags this season. But I got a good laugh from Dagnabbit's laying claim above to Shetlands and Orkney, on behalf of the King of Norway! Do I detect a slightly fanatical mentality here...? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree -- I'm unsure, though, why there's been a challenge in retaining this separate listing per the UN listing of territories: it's comprehensive and is used in other articles. While you may not be incorrect regarding the sovereignty of these territories (and I presume they are grouped together due to convenience, even by the ISO, since JM is small and unpopulated), Oberst, I also share CS's exception to the tactics employed throughout in removing it. At its base, removing the entry isn't necessarily agreeable; it may also prompt the question is' Svalbard included (despite its northerly location and unique governance)?' in a single entry for Norway?
Anyhow, at this point, I believe the separate listing for should Svalbard/Jan Mayen should remain, but with a note about those entities. Corticopia 17:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is Europe really a continent?

Depends. Do you consider Pluto a planet? — Rickyrab | Talk 13:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

For that see Pluto-Don't-Care-Dwarf-Planet-Not. Europe is a continent (former Baltica, formed from 2.5 to 1.8 Ga) centered somewhere between Vitebsk and Moscow, bordered by the Alps, Pyreneans, Scandians, Ural Mtns and Caucasus, and some extra fragments pilfered from other continents: Iberia and Italy from Africa, Scotland and West Norway from Laurentia, England, Ireland and Denmark from the ceased continent Avalonia. Turkey is a border case, a matter of taste - I chose that Turkey is a micro-continent in its own right (since it wandered around in the Tethys Ocean before semi-attaching to Europe and Asia). Rursus 12:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
And Turkey isn't in Europe --– Emperor Walter Humala · ( shout! · sign? ) 18:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Aehum ... now, thinking practically: where do we discuss the area Turkey? Whether we truthfully regard Turkey as belonging to Europe or Asia or being a separate continent, do we wish to create an article discussing the Turkey microcontinent? Then, we must do so for Iran, Arabia, Kasakhstania, India, Northen China, Southern China and Tibet also! This gives müriads de continentes, and do we wish such an article layout? I propose putting Turkey within the scope of Europe. Rursus 13:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Europe is a subcontinent, which along with Asia (with it's own Indian subcontinent) comprises the continent of Eurasia. A "Eurafrasia" isn't a continent--Africa is clearly and cleanly separated from Eurasia by an isthmus. And North and South America are not a single American continent--North America and South America are two continents separated by the isthmus of Panama. Chiss Boy 10:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reducing size

"This page is 55 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size."

One way of achieving this is by deleting (or moving to a separate list) the huge table of inhabitants, area and capital. Dagnabit 19:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing the table wouldn't serve a useful purpose, as it provides necessary detail regarding the political constituents of Europe; other content can be pruned instead or shunted to subarticles (e.g., language/religion information can be reduced/moved elsewhere without blinking). Corticopia 12:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I would attend to this, but I don't have the power to edit protected pages. Therefore: {{editprotected}}. I would copy the bulk of the Languages section into the article European languages. As well, the link to Eurolinguistics should be removed, as that article is a stub (concerning a field of research less than a 4 decades old), and the first link in European languages goes to Eurolinguistics. Readers interested in language(s) will find what they want to find. Xaxafrad 02:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Likewise with Religions, except I'm not sure the information therein is exactly duplicated. Further, in the See Also section, I would tinker with the section/list headings to get rid of the subsections in the TOC. Xaxafrad 03:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Please go ahead and copy the information to another article; once that is done, insert another editprotected tag and I will remove the duplicate information from this article. CMummert · talk 13:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English spoken fluently by majority of Europe? See Languages section, "Other Languages"

I seriously doubt this is true. A majority of Europe may (or may not) speak English well enough to get a point across, but that's not fluency. Either way, a citation is needed. Nine999999999s 23:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, that needs to be removed. According to List of countries by English-speaking population the EU has a total of 229,850,000 fluent English speakers, which is less than half of the entire population of the EU (about 494 million), meaning it is not a majority. And if you add European countries outside the EU to that it would probably be an even smaller percentage. --Krsont 14:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed again. It's just clearly incorrect. Alsopoet 18:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asia needs to be taken off of the Europe page

Asia is no part of Europe and needs to be erased. Turkey is a European country. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.174.138.217 (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

What? Chiss Boy 10:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Do we really need to erase Asia? I prefer not, if only for the immense amount of work needed. And if succeding to find a suitable tool for erasing it, where should the Asiatics live afterwards? Rursus 13:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Macedonia

Please state F.Y.R Macedonia instead of Macedonia—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.15.253.50 (talk • contribs).

The official name of this country is Republic of Macedonia. "Macedonia" can be used for short when it's clear that one's referring to the independent nation, not the region. "F.Y.R Macedonia" is a creation following the Greek dispute over the name of this country. Wikipedia, unlike the European Union, is not bound to Greek nitpicking, so that country shall not be referred as "F.Y.R Macedonia" on this encyclopedia.--Húsönd 22:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
You're Greek, aren't you? You seem to be a very vindictive people (especially against Turks, Americans, and MACEDONIANS). Macedonia is commonly used to refer to the country north of yours (if you are indeed Greek), even if the name is the same as one of your northern provinces/regions. Chiss Boy 10:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm a Geek too. Rursus 13:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crooked English

The caption to the photograph at the bottom says that in that city there are "more Euros traded than in every other city in Europe combined." What on Earth does that mean? I'm no native speaker, but I don't think that's English. And since it is therefore unclear what is meant, it should be deleted unless a source is provided. DirkvdM 12:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I can understand what it means. It means that city (London) accounts for over half of the Euro trade in Europe. But 'than in all other European cities combined' would be clearer grammar than 'than in every other city in Europe combined'. I can't speak at all to the accuracy of this claim. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brittany is not one department but five

In the article (Languages & cultures, Celtic languages) it is written that Brittany is a department of France. This is not actually really correct: Brittany is in fact formed of five departments. Four of them form the Bretagne region, the fifth being in the Pays-de-la-Loire region. (But regions in France are little more than administrative units, hence the somewhere strange groups of departments.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.62.205.64 (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC).


[edit] Unbelievable Total Area and Population errors for Turkey

I cannot believe how such egregious errors have made to such a major article of Wikipedia. In the table, the area of Turkey is listed as 24,378 km^2. This is way off, as the area is actually 783,562km^2, making Turkey the 37th largest country in the world, and the largest one in Europe (after Russia, if you choose to count it). It's population is 72,600,000, much more than the 11,000,000 listed. The population density is also wrong: the actual value puts it at 93 /km²

These huge errors raise the big question regarding the reliability of Wikipedia. This article is supposed to be a so-called Core 1.0 article, and yet it contains factual mistakes. It also seems plausible to me that these changes are acts of vandalism, possibly an answer to the debatable question of putting Turkey in Europe or not. I urge the maintainer to fix this problem, and verify the values for the other countries (especially the total numbers). There also needs to be someway to lock some values in some case to prevent such changes in the future. After all, how often can a countries total area change?

Graffitici 21:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Read the notes (and specific ref/note for Turkey): figures in the table about Europe include only those values for the European portion of Turkey (per the fairly common transcontinental border through the Bosporus). Ditto for other countries that straddle Europe and other continents (e.g., Russia also in Asia). The only 'mistakes' are those of misinterpretation. Like, how many times does this issue need to be brought up? Corticopia 21:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I would say this issue will be brought up many more times, as it probably is the most absurd choice. In which encyclopedia have you seen a fraction of a country's population being displayed in this way? Turkey is obviously transcontinental, but that doesn't mean you can slice it's population. The transcontinental border may be common, but this choice is definitely not
Case in point: there is an article entitled List_of_European_countries_in_order_of_geographical_area. The author of that article asserts that he got the values from the Europe article, and believe it or not, Turkey's population was listed as 22,000 until I changed it. A high school student who is doing research about Europe wouldn't even read the little note that is attached to each country. Displaying both the number for the entire population, and that of the European side seems to be the least that can be done. I am also very curious as to who makes these decisions. Regular users, or people with PhDs in geography?Graffitici 21:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Absurdity? Is it also absurd that these continental borders are commonly reckoned by geographers to cut across a number of countries, in encyclopedias and other volumes? Hardly. This is clearly spelled out in the introduction, and the content in the table/article simply reflects that; decisions are made consensually and empirically, yet rationally. Speaking of which: of course you can slice an area or population, as these territories possess subdivisions that allow for detailed analysis. Furthermore, the border between Europe and Asia essentially cuts through Istanbul (at the Bosporus), a city of at least 10 million people. The other article you cite deals with area, and contains an inaccurate, unbelievable value far in excess of that listed in other publications (which you changed somewhat haphazaradly); anyhow, that's part of the nature of the beast regarding content in Wikipedia. Listing both totals in the table here (European portion and total) is a possibility, but seems an overcomplication. Simply put, if someone cannot take the time or patience to read the 'little notes' and discussions (lengthy) here and elsewhere regarding this (iterating notions in the intro and elsewhere) while -- per the originator of this discussion above -- commenting at length about errors which don't exist and glazing over other content, then one should wonder why they are commenting at all and are perhaps undeserving of a response. Corticopia 21:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
First off, I would like to assert that no comment should be undeserving of a response. If Wikipedia is not built on interactions among community members, then I don't know what it stands for. I believe the persons who have the rights and the authority for making changes should listen to such complaints, instead of devaluing them as undeserving of a response. Secondly, the fact that these issues are being brought up so many times suggests that these "consensual, empirical, yet rational" decisions may not be so rational after all. The introduction mentions nothing of transcontinental countries, but announces simply the presence of notes (which is taken for granted anyway). It never says anything about how the populations listed are not that of the respective country, but rather the part that lies on the European continent by UN's definition. As a side note. the only remark I will make regarding the so-called "haphazard" changes I made to the article is that I took the "unbelievable value far in excess of that listed in other publications" from the main article on Turkey. If that is haphazard, then I do not know what empirical knowledge is. And I wonder what your "other publications" are, since the CIA factbook, among others, seem to agree with that number. Perhaps you would want to correct the values on that article too, as it seems you alone perform all the population and area measurements.
Instead of stubbornly discussing a matter like this, one should try to provide an answer. If only a territory of a country is included in a table, then that entry should be labeled as such. Turkey does NOT have a population of 24,378, it has a population of 72,600,000. If one needs to be so rational, then that entry shouldn't be that of Turkey, but rather that of Trakya. The field entitled "Name of region and territory, with flag" should be changed to Trakya, Turkey, and no flag should be included, since regions do not have associated flags in Turkey. Similar changes need to be made to every country that is not considered entirely in Europe. Then perhaps later you would need to answer questions as to why Turkey is not included as a country on an article about Europe, while being a candidate of the European Union.
The moral of this discussion is that Wikipedia can never replace an authentic encyclopedia. Instead of relying on a board of scientists and thinkers, we are left to trust several people making rational decisions, but don't even reveal their qualifications or names. If you solely have the authority and the final say in making these changes, then perhaps you should sign the article with your name(s), and let everybody know that the content reflects the opinions of a selected few, as opposed to the "common sense" of a community. Graffitici 01:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I will respond briefly and finally since you seem to have intents beyond those stated. Of course Wikipedia is built on discussion and consensus: the point is that the issue has been discussed and answered -- your commentary merely conflates the issue and is rather droning. The introduction and elsewhere in the article thoroughly describes the fairly common border delineating Europe and Asia, and the locator map and map next to the table below clearly exhibit this; additional notes expand on this. As well, in that other article, you fall back on the CIA Fact Book, but you incorrectly include(d) all of Turkey's area while glazing over Russia and other countries which also straddle the border of Europe and Asia -- e.g., Russia's total area is some 17 million km2. You also happened to glaze over the obvious error of Europe's total area, which was listed as seven times that of its actual area. So your edits are undoubtedly haphazard, perhaps myopic, and arguably subjective -- at this point, I don't care. I or any editor has the ability to correct the values anywhere as specified, to ensure that they are accurate and consistent with cited facts; I can gladly do so. And please note that the UN geoscheme actually includes Turkey in Asia, but is used in this and other continental tables to preclude the willful moving of territories here and there while maintaining some semblance of order and organisation -- barring any mindquakes, there's no reason to change that.
While I have no hesistation to reveal my qualifications, I am neither required nor compelled to do so. You appear to be a fairly sporadic editor and perhaps the error is mine for even having responded in the first place, but there is also a tenet to not feed trolls ... and at this point I am unconvinced that you are not one. Au revoir. Corticopia 02:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kalmyk language

I heared Kalmyk language is Turkic. Is it really non-Turkic? Any source?--Certh 21:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It's "west mongolian", see Kalmyk people, especially #External links. (However, don't mention "mongol" so they can hear it!) Rursus 13:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Europa

What does Europe actually mean? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flyingdannish (talk • contribs) 00:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Europe is an Indo-European word which consists from two parts: ide Ausā- 'rising' (Latvian aust 'to rise (about sun), to dawn', Latin Aurōra 'morning blaze, dawn, sunrise', ide Ausārā, Latvian ausma, austra) and ide apas 'water, river' (Skr. apah water, river, Latvian ape, upe 'river').
So Europe means Aus(r)ā-apā 'sunrise river', this word later was romanized to Aurō-apā and then greekized to Eurōpē. Roberts7 13:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/u/r/Talk%7EEurope_f14a.html"