Talk:Europe/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Who here is qualified to speak?

Culture does not follow geographic or post-cold war political lines. You are insulting more than 4, 000, 000, 000 people by saying things like Syria has the same culture as Japan. Or that Norway has the same culture as Albania. There is no such thing as 'Asia'. And there is no such thing as 'Europe'. Can you even name me one single thing that the Norwegians and the Greeks, or the Tajiks and the Japanese share in common, to bring them under such a sweeping and extremist label as 'Europe' or 'Asia'? The whole thing is a political illusion. Which you all seem to have fallen for. One thing is for sure, if you haven't lived in a country, you are a megalomaniac to consider yourself qualified to label it as 'European'. That goes especially for Greece and Turkey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.65.242.154 (talk) 08:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

since when have qualifications been needed for Wikipedia. Material on article pages is supposed to be backed with references to reputable sources, rather than un backed speculation, as above.

I'm sure all you other folk agree. I'm sure it is the rules for wikipedia. If someone just wants to push their own personal opinion, perhaps they should set up their own encyclopedia.

Mariya - x -

--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 10:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Australia isn't a Continent

On the page about Europe The Page it states that austrailia is the smallest continent. I think that Australaisia is what the Admin means. Please could you change it as the admin has locked it for editing.

Thank You --Ravi sud 14:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Autralasia is not a continent but part of the continent of Oceania. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.254.12 (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Europe is not part of Russia

Although Russia is bigger than Europe, it is not a continent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.236.134.164 (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Russia stands on it own, and while European in heritage, is distinctly different in numerous ways. Otherwise, Europe would extend from Portugal to Kamchatka, even larger if we were to include French Guiana (a French Compartment). —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConstantGeographer (talk • contribs) 04:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hellenic Republic, Turkey and Egypt

People talk about Europe as if it isnt extremely controversial. Europe is an illusion. Its not difficult-there just is no such thing as 'Europe'. It is very peculiar to read comments by people who fancy themselves as informed intellectuals on the matter. Especially on the basis of reading books. I dont think anyone should talk about the word - and it is just a word - "Europe", without having lived in at least three different 'European' countries. Unless you have lived in these places you so dictatorially label as 'European', it is far beyond absolutely ridiculous to consider yourself an authority on the matter.

I, however, am such an authority. And it is very simple:

1. There is no such thing as 'Europe'. Its just a word used by governments to bring many countries under one power for the purposes of Westernization. 2. If there was such thing as Europe, Greece, Turkey and Egypt are not remotely European, never mind how much the younger MTV generations may want them to be. 3. Turkey, Greece (correctly called the Hellenic Republic) and Egypt are in the same situation when this idiotic subject arises. I will clarify:

WHATEVER YOU THINK, AND HOWEVER YOU WANT TO LABEL THE EARTH'S SURFACE, THERE IS ONE CONSTANT GROUP: GREECE, TURKEY AND EGYPT ARE IN THE SAME SITUATION, AND SHOULD ALWAYS BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER, UNDER THE SAME CONDITIONS.

If you havent even had first hand experience of both the the West, Turkey, the Hellenic Republic and/or Egypt, you have a major ego problem to think that you are qualified to even have an opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.65.242.154 (talk) 07:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

since when have qualifications been needed for Wikipedia. Material on article pages is supposed to be backed with references to reputable sources, rather than un backed speculation, as above.
I'm sure all you other folk agree. I'm sure it is the rules for wikipedia. If someone just wants to push their own personal opinion, perhaps they should set up their own encyclopedia.

Mariya - x -
--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 10:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Roman catholicism is not very "eastern" (being Roman it can't, really ;), but other predominantly catholic countries are not in the same category, either (Croatia: southern E, Poland: Eastern E) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.163.254.27 (talk) 04:19, 9 June 2008 (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)

I don't see how Lithuania or Latvia have connections to Nordics other than a brief rule by the Sweeden. Latvians and Lithuanians share same culture and mentality as poles or chehs, not scandinavians, fins or estonians. Baltic langues are quite similar to slavic (both have arhaic grammar). So sometimes they are united as balto-slavic langues;)

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)

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)

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!

The flag is very confusing on this page as every European associates it primarily with the European Union. It should not be part of Wikipedias program to change this convention. Furthermore there have previously been a poll on this matter (see [2]) with a majority supporting a removal of the flag. I therefore take the liberty of removing the flag once again and hope it will not be put back without support of a Wikipedia consensus. Moravice 21:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

File:Europe flags.gif

A compromise might be a collage of flags similar to the one to the right. However, it would have to contain all flags of Europe (Lichtenstein, Andorra, Belarus, Bosnia. Jersey, Gueunsey, etc) to avoid offense. But anyway the flags are all there in the table at the end of the article, which seems adequate to me. If someone wants to make an eye-catching collage of them all, that might also be nice. --Mathsci 08:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Tha flag is not just the flag of The EU. it was first adopted by Council of Europe many years before the EU ,despite the fact that it might be better known as the EU flag. council of europe, creator of this flag has every single european country in it (except authoritarian Belarus) so I think this flag can be called european without any problems.--UltioUltionis (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

MAP?????????????

The Newborn state, the Republic of Kosovo, should be on the map! Pease, replace the map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DataOpen (talk • contribs) 08:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo isn't on the multi-coloured map either. Frediculous biggs (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

"American states have more power than the British home nations--they have their own powers," Super powers. How exactly did you conduct this amazing comparison of radically different legal and political systems. Let me guess you started with the premise USA No. 1 and then got distracted by a whooshing noise on Fox. 83.70.219.91 23:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

- I am getting very big error on the map. It expands right across the page and stretches all the text around the edge, making it almost entirely unreadable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.64.163 (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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)

Cyprus is part of the EU, so obviously it is part of Europe! Meowy 21:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Illogical: 'European Union' does not equal 'Europe'. Russia is not in the EU, nor are Norway and Switzerland, so they are not parts of Europe? The island of Cyprus is closest to Turkey (Asia Minor). As well, the Caucasus are sometimes included in Europe (particularly by those in ex-Soviet states, already stated in the article), sometimes not, but usually form its border with Asia. The UN geoscheme (about which this table is generally based) includes Cyprus and the Caucasian states in Western Asia. Amidst all of this, there can be no doubt about one thing: all are constituents of Eurasia. :) Corticopia 21:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not follow one set definition of Europe. The article follows the defintion set by Corticopia, and all other definitions are not valid in her eyes. At first I thought her edits were based on ethnic anmosity and chauvanism, but in the end I realised it is just due to her ignorance, and refusal to admit it, and tenacity in watching and rv'ing any changes to this page. Behaviour that is common-as-muck for Wikipedia. So I lost interest. End of subject, really. Meowy 01:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that is revealed in the above is your ignorance. And it's a he. Yes: end of subject. Corticopia 01:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I see that Cyprus has now totally disappeared from the list of countries. It was obviously there at one time as there is still a footnote about it. Even if some believe it should be in the Asian sections, it should certainly be reinserted somewhere.--Ipigott (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It is completely political and unethical to draw geographic lines which surround Turkey but does not include it in Europe. The cultural and political definition of Europe is a dangerous one: it introduces identities subject to individual opinions. Let us ONLY display on Wikipedia facts that are tangible - such as Cyprus being part of the EU despite its division, or such as Turkey being in the European Customs Union since 1990s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erdemnino (talk • contribs) 10:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Turkey is Historical and genetical(DNA) belong Europe Turkish race name is Europid/Turanid and Turanid race belon to European Family and finaly Turkey is in WEOG/Europe in United nations(http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Western_European_and_Others_Group)

Sure Turkey is European —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aegeanfighter (talk • contribs) 16:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC). Turkey is in both Europe and Asia, or Eurasia. Corticopia 16:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, since when are Turanids considered a European phenotype? They're spread throughout Central Asia and Turkey. Sorry to disappoint you, but the Turks are rarely considered white in European countries, except by politically correct censuses, that tend to believe that Azerbaijan is European as well.Humanophage 16:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Turkey is as European as Spain is African because of Ceuta, Melilla and islands, or as the United Kingdom is South American because of the Falkland Islands. Only a fraction (or colony) of Turkey rests in Europe (the reasons for which are beyond this topic), while its main land and capital lies in Asia. Turkey is an Asian country and wanting to be European so badly is not going to change this fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.159.69.56 (talk) 19:38, 15 August, 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Turkey is as European as Spain is African. Who has claimed that Spain is not a (partly) African country? Take a look at Africa#Territories and regions or Template:Countries of Africa. You can't really argue that we can't say A because we don't also say B, when in fact we do say B. -- Jao 20:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Spain like Portugal is in Hispania, not Europe. So it is neither part of Europe or Africa. 194.46.252.120 01:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to see a definition of Europe that excludes the Iberian peninsula. -- Jao (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Only Turkey and its supporters have a deliberate fixation with making this Asian country appear as European in all lists, charts and maps. Unfortunately for them, Turkey is an Asian country with its capital and the vast majority of its territory and population in the Asian continent. I, as an European, don't recognize them as Europeans, and never will — not (only) because of their culture and behaviour, but because they simply aren't. 82.159.69.56 (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Turkey is memeber of ILO-europe Unesco-europe and others,Turkey is always in european block ex:concil of europe(http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Western_European_and_Others_Group) and Turkey will join to EU in 2015 accordingly Turkey and Cyprus must be in Southern European Topic,Thanks for read it.Aegeanfighter

This is not in dispute, but your edits are -- read this page and the archives about the current arrangement. And, per the UN scheme for regions and other sources, Turkey -- and Cyprus -- are included in Asia. Corticopia 16:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

if its right,tell me where is europe or where is asia even bosphorus is enaugh for difference so Europe realy belong to asia europe is only region not continent like America OK? Aegeanfighter

The Bosphorus is generally seen as a border between Europe and Asia. So Turkey is in both Europe and Asia. However as told before, Wikipedia uses the United Nations geoscheme for the tables and than Turkey is seen as part Western Asia. About your question on continents: there are many models for the number of continents. Most of the times Europe is seen as a continent (like North America or South America), but sometimes as a subcontinent of Eurasia. But please read! Everything has been explained already in the articles, talk pages and archives. Peter Maas\^talk 18:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course the elephant in the corner of the room here is the unspoken premise of NATO membership. While the UK has always criticised the EU, it has been the most vocal member in favour of Turkish membership. The US has also pushed for it strongly. Even though they are both fully aware that Turkey is not a European country. If you really want a good argument for why Turkey is not in Europe, I suggest you read the edits on the Wikipedia Turkey entry. If after reading t, you still think that Turkey is a European country then you are either British (and you hate Europeans anyway), American (the atlas is a stranger to you), or you are a psychopath. Word to the wise, they'll trace your IP. You may want to use an anonymiser first.

It makes no sense at all! Turkey is not Europe, and the arguments used by Peter Maas are ridiculous. They play in the Europeans football competitions? They do, just like Israel. Candidates to European Union? Even Cape Vert are considering to apply. Arabs still have lots of constructions in Iberian Peninsula... is Marroco Europe because of that? The Portuguese/Spanish/British, French, Dutch has constructions all over the world... so we're african, asian, american too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.228.177.213 (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Turkey should really be considered European, they've always had a substantial influence on the state of Europe over history (medicine, war). And besides, it's not like Asia really needs any more land is it....? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that Turkey, while having an influence on Europe, is NOT European. Within most geography textbooks, Turkey falls into Southwest Asia, along with the Middle Eastern countries of Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Iran; the Northern African countries of Libya, Egypt; the Arabian Peninsula and Persia. Even if Turkey is a NATO member and a potential member to the EU, that does not constitute membership in "Europe." -CG (talk) 04:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)ConstantGeographer

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)

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)

N.B. see below: Irish Religion [by the way there is no "Irish Religion" ..but we know what is ment...a religion of the Irish] Osborne 11:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Anything less than 50% is not a minority you moron! Good God the education in your country must be appalling. If I have four religions, now understand this is a hypothetical point i am putting to you, four religions one of which is Catholic another is Buddhism, the third Muslim and the last is Sikh. How on Earth can anything under 50% be a minority? That is either the stupidity of your nature or you are so ignorant to understand that there may be more than two faiths celebrated in Northern Ireland. What particularly annoyed me about your comment is you told RedZebra how to punctuate his work and then you use grammatically incorrect terminology. If you are going to correct someone at least correct them using correct grammar yourself. Just for your information, in English, which by the way most English people are loathed to see the Americans use, you cannot begin a sentence with the word "And" as you did. Unbelievable stupidity and Ignorance from an American. What should i expect though. "Hey ya got that Y'all?" Pinster2001 September 26th 2007 14:57 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinster2001 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Woah no need to go crazy at him! Also 40.26% might not be a minority, depending upon the percentage of other religions; if all the other religions had only 26% then it would be in the majority. Just to inform you all.. Oh and just to clear things up you can start a sentence with 'And' depending on the situation, particuarly in novels. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

What's with all this NATO guff, it has nothing to do with Europe. You mention sausage regulations and economic reforms, that's Europe. Human Rights, Free trade and the removal of war as a political tool is what Europe is about, not americas NATO nonsense. America would never be allowed to join the EU, their policy of executing children and torture is too inhuman. 83.70.219.91 00:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Every European, myself included, denotes Poland and surrounding countries as Central European. This Eastern denotation is such a North American thing to say. Wikipedia may not agree with me, but then that's Wikipedia's error. You tell any European that one of these nations is "Eastern" and they'll laugh you out of the pub or room you're in.

Another problem I have is the inclusion of Turkey and the other Asian nations in the article. They're even labeled as Asian, so I really don't see why they're being documented as European. This is blatantly false and I find it ridiculous that Wikipedia would even allow for this to go uncorrected. Thelostpatrol 20:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, although it's a fact that countries such as Poland are located in Central Europe, for many Europeans it's okay to refer to them as Eastern European. Not much for their geographical location, but rather for their past location as east of the Iron Curtain.--Húsönd 23:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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.". --Ckatz^chat_spy 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... --Ckatz^chat_spy 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)

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)

More Slavic languages write in Cyrillic than with something else. So, it stays.

-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.157.7 (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

How come? Roughly a half of Slavic languages are not using the Cyrillic alphabet. All Western Slavic ones are written in Latin, and most Southern Slavic languages tend to utilize the Latin script somewhat more often, with the exception of the Bulgarian language. At the same time, the majority of distinctly non-Slavic and non-European nations colonised by the Russians, like the Mongols or the Tatars, utilise the Cyrillic script. --Humanophage 18:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

You mean they aren't??? --euyyn 07:07, 22 May 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)

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)

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).

Both catholic and protestants are of the one religion, they arer both Christian" but they are of separate denominations. God Bless you all. Osborne 07:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC) - corrected Osborne 08:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"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)

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.

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).

Why excluding authoritarian states?--Dojarca 11:18, 30 September 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)

Patriotism is nice, but not really objective. Europe has two permanent UN Security seats, the US has one. The EU has recently now surpassed the US in terms of GDP. The Euro seems to be doing pretty well in value against the dollar. The "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" seem to have made an astute political judgement, which has increased the political power of the EU, while reducing that of the US. The Russians seem to have loads of new oil and gas. Hmm. How about we forget about sphere's of influence, and patriotism and get back to improving the knowledge of the world.Mariya Oktyabrskaya 03:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, including Russia, Europe has 3 permanent seats on the UN security council. 3 out of 5 looks like major influence to me.Mariya Oktyabrskaya 23:00, 30 September 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)

Curiously enough, the map seems to provide the most correct definition of Europe of them all. With the exception of Chili, which should be light green due to heavily indigenous influences in culture. It's a real shame that it's not supported by any research or official statements, but it's an excellent map. Humanophage 12:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a map of racial composition in fact. The countries painted blue have white majority and painted green have mixed european/non-european race population.--Dojarca 11:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, isn't it reasonable to assume that Europe is where Europeans live? --Humanophage 18:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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).

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))

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

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).

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)

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)

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)

Part of Turkey is definitely in Europe. Without being too POV about it, after a quite a few wars etc. Turkey ended up occupying part of Europe. After a few more wars, a bit of Europe remained within the administrational sphere. That bit is Turkey west of the Bosphorous. We can't really put that ittle bit in another continent just because it was conquered by people from Asia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 03:22, 16 September 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

If you would have taken the time to check out his userpage [[3]], you would have seen that he is actually Portuguese. And I, a Canadian, happen to agree with his statement. I also that the Greeks have a right to be a little miffed at the appropriation of the name that has belonged to them for literally thousands of years - but that's a discussion for a different page. CanadianMist 18:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It might not have been obvious despite the (lack of) indentation but if you would have taken the time to read his arguments, you would have seen that Chiss was talking to the original anonymous IP, not to Husond. If you read his comment as targeted towards Husond, they make no sense at all. It does sound plausible that the original anonymous IP was Greek. -- Jao 18:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm a Geek too. Rursus 13:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an absurd argument. Moldova is both a region in Romania and a separate country, and yet you don't see Romania contesting Republic of Moldova's right to call itself Moldova.--upsidown (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

Cyprus in Territories and regions

Why is Cyprus not in the Territories and regions section of the page; surely it should be under Southern Europe? --DanDesio.81.154.96.81 12:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Cyprus is geographically in Asia

Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia

My feeling is that either all three countries should be included (with footnotes indicating their contentious inclusion) or all three should be excluded. Certain editors have been making edits that exclude Armenia while leaving the other two, without - it seems - making any attempt at discussion or concensus. To stop the possibility of an edit war, a cool-headed discussion is in order. Meowy 21:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Feelings have nothing to to with it: the current content was long-ago arrived at and harks of the common border between Europe and Asia. The other states of the Caucasus are generally reckoned to straddle both Asia and Europe, while Armenia, in the Transcaucasus (i.e,, in the southern Caucasus), is generally reckoned to be in the latter. The current article content and table equitably deals with the content of what is where. Shall we foolishly include all of Russia on one or the other too? Footnotes and details are already included to explain those ambiguities, and the tables are otherwise based on the UN geoscheme; in this, all the Caucasus are in Western Asia. To stop the possibility of an edit war, I suggest you discuss and garner a consensus changing content. In pushing your point of view, you have likely breached 3RR -- and you will be reverted and reported. Corticopia 21:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

actually it is you who has reached the 3RR and, since you have so kindly suggested it first, I will of course report you if you exceed that limit. Returning to the subject, the entry already correctly says that there are various descriptions of Europe's boundary; in some sources, some territories are not included in Europe, while other sources include them. Numerous geographers consider Azerbaijan's and Armenia's southern border with Iran .... as the boundary between Asia and Europe. So the problem appears to be with your rigid holding to that scheme for geographic sub regions used by the United Nations. Just because the United Nations defines something one way doesn’t mean that there are not different views that should be taken account of. I could quote a host of references that will say that Armenia is part of Europe. Your exclusion of Armenia but inclusion of Azerbaijan is just dogmatic. I suggest that the rigid adherence to that UN definition in the Territories and regions section should ended, but it should still be stated that the listing roughly follows that UN definition except when stated otherwise. Meowy 22:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No, your problem is the willful imbalancing of content. Yes: please provide those reputable sources that include Armenia in Europe. A number of geographers do reckon the southern border of Azerbaijan and Armenia to form the border between Europe and Asia (which is already states in the article), but (per the article) many more indicate that it is the main crest of Caucasus Mountains that forms this border. In addition to sources already listed, including the UN, I can provide a wealth more to corroborate the current article/table content: a number of atlases already do. And the article already accommodates for this ambiguity, indicating that there are variances on the scheme as needed. I see no reason to forego the prior arrangement. I suggest that your willful edits -- predicated on the grounds that "Armenians on Hyeforum have been whining and whinging about it but are too ignorant to know how to edit Wikipedia" -- be discarded, since the table is now a hodge-podge meant more to reflect whatever you believe Europe to be. And until you cite sources and garner a consensus to support your edits, your edits will be dealt with as such. Corticopia 22:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a number of geographers but numerous geographers (according to Wikipedia:Geography of Europe) consider Azerbaijan's and Armenia's southern border with Iran as the boundary between Asia and Europe because of political and cultural reasons. The main crest of the Caucasus mountain range does indeed form a conceptual border between Europe and Asia – and has done since Classical times (note for example the legend of Gog and Magog, banished beyond the edge of the Known World, behind the Caucasus mountains). But it is the countries bordering the southern side of the crest of the Caucasus (i.e. Georgian and Armenia) that are considered to be part of Europe, and not those on the Northern side. Meowy 22:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This is your opinion, and you are just being argumentative -- there is nothing new in your commentary, and you have not provided sources as requested. Self-references to Wikipedia articles are insufficient, and there is a distinct difference between what 'numerous' geographers indicate and what 'many' or 'most' do. For example, Encyclopaedia Britannica indicates Armenia "(fronts) the northwestern extremity of Asia", and MOST of the sources at this online resource (e.g., CIA) indicate the same. Not one indicates Armenia is in Europe. So, I defer to my prior comments: your edits, without consensus or much sense, will not stand. Corticopia 23:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Answers.com gets its answers from Wikipedia, everyone knows that! So, remember your self-references to Wikipedia articles are insufficient comment. Britanica is a subscription website and the full entry is not free to view so I cannot comment on it. Meowy 23:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Lets examine that scheme for geographic subregions used by the United Nations. Actually, there is a bit of misrepresentation, because the correct title is Standard country or area codes and geographical regions for statistical use (see [4]) To quote from the UN site: The geographical regions and groupings of countries and areas included at this site are not comprehensive but only a selection which are or may be used in the compilation of statistics. In order to ensure consistency in statistics and for convenience, each country or area is shown in one region only. And The assignment of countries or areas to specific groupings is for statistical convenience and does not imply any assumption regarding political or other affiliation of countries or territories by the United Nations. Thus the UN makes it quite clear that their organisation of the regions are for statistical convenience and not for geographical, cultural, or historical or ethnic reasons. There is no reason for those UN-defined regions to be used as the sole basis for deciding what is and what is not in Europe - even the UN says that! And Corticopia is breaking his own rules by including Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey in the listing (all defined as being in Western Asia according to that UN categorisation) but excluding Armenia (a country which is entirely surrounded by those 4 countries and which the UN also defines as part of Western Asia). Corticopia seems to have an untenable agenda – the exclusion of Armenia from an entry about Europe, and the inclusion into the entry of certain Turkic countries (including Kazakstan - which by anyone's definition is not part of Europe). Meowy 23:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You are trying to employ sophistry and misrepresentation to push your point of view. Answers.com iterates a number of reliable sources: excluding the Wikipedia mirror, it exhibits Britannica (Concise), the CIA World Fact Book, Houghton Mifflin reference ... all of which indicate Armenia is in Asia. Here's another: the Columbia Encyclopedia (also in Answers.com). Plus, the UN scheme, that's at least five reliable references that support this position. Despite your verbiage, you have provided NO sources and fall back on polemicism to back your viewpoint. And I am not breaking any 'rules': as discussed before and throughout, the article presents content equitably and accurately -- look at the effin map at Europe, which exhibits the commonly reckoned border! The table merely reflects that content: it is modelled on the UN scheme (whcih corroborates the sources above) for organizational purposes, but provides leeway for those territories which may be ambiguous (e.g., Russia, Turkey, Georgia). And any continued commentary from you regarding my motives, vis-à-vis yours which you've clearly stated (pro-Armenian Euro-inclusionist?), will be ignored. Make and substantiate your case, or get lost. Corticopia 23:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You have completely ignored everything I wrote about the UN definitions, again revealing how untenable your bigoted arguments are. You are simply misusing those UN definitions. They are definitions intended for statistical use only, and they should not be used in the way you are misusing them. For example, one definition of Armenia is that it is a transcontinental country; a country belonging to more than one continent. However, there is no recognition of that concept in those rigid UN definitions because, as they have stated, for statistical reasons a country cannot be placed into two of their categories. Meowy 00:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing of yours has been ignored. It is you who, despite excessive discussion beforehand/throughout, have completely ignored everything else. Please provide sources to support your position, and consensual reasons as to why your version is an innovation that should usurp another agreeable version which has been in place for months. Otherwise, your contributions will be reverted. And until you produce, I am ending my involvement in this 'discussion.' Corticopia 00:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Corticopia seems to be adept at ignoring rather than answering all the points I have already made! It is late here, so I will not write anything more. Maybe by tomorrow he will be able to explain why he thinks all the countries that surround Armenia should be included in his definition of Europe, but that Armenia itself should be excluded. Maybe he will also have time to look at a map of the Caucasus region. He has already admitted that the spine of the Caucasus Mountains forms a border between Asia and Europe. Is his geography so hazy that he thinks the northern side is in Europe and the southern side is in Asia? For some sources that say that Armenia is part of Europe just read the introductory section of the wikipedia entry on [Armenia], and then go to references 1, 2, 3, and 4. Meowy 00:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

And I'm unsure what you're adept at, except at gibbering and perhaps resembling a troll, which I refuse to feed hereafter. Your points have already been dealt with, and no new information has been provided. And yes: it is not just my position that these territories may be delineated so cleanly but one that a number of reliable publications endorse. Your table edits have conflated content inappropriately and, frankly, suck rocks. Again, stop whining and garner consensus for your edits, or count on them being expunged upon your return and thereafter. Good night, Irene. Corticopia 00:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted to the pre-Armenia version for now, without prejudice. Given the various nationalistic struggles that can plague these sorts of articles, it is best to keep the existing consensus unless and until a new one develops here on the Talk page. Please avoid ad-hoc arguments - Wikipedia has no need to do its own amateur geography work. As I see it, the main points of interest would be the basis for including Armenia in the Council of Europe, and whether the EU considers Armenia a part of Europe for future membership purposes. Remember, however, that the current table is geographical in nature, and an appropriate "European part" of Armenia would have to be identified, as is the case with Turkey or Azerbaijan.

Incidentally, it might be useful to look at some way of visually emphasizing the "partial" nature of some of the countries in the table (beyond the footnotes), to avoid the ongoing confusion over them. A background color shade of their table cells, italics, the use of some word like "partial", or some other indication might be considered. - David Oberst 01:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I agree with maintaining the status quo. Don't get me wrong: I acknowledged assertions of what may or may not comprise Europe/Asia/Eurasia, but it is important to present this information equitably ... which I believe the current table does. Recent edits have been so not that. However, it is also important to note that membership in international organisations (e.g., Council of Europe, EU) is not synonymous with definitions for traditional geographic entities -- i.e., the EU is not Europe, just as NAFTA is not all of North America, etc. Similarly, I believe the Armenia article does have a pro-European kick to it, despite a number of reliable references which indicate otherwise (e.g., provided above), and should be refactored somewhat. Anyhow ...

However, your suggestions for enhancements seem prudent. Perhaps we can test one or a number of arrangements before implementing them here and elsewhere? Corticopia 13:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Corticopia, given that so much of what you wrote is your personal opinion why not file an RFC on the topic to see a broader range of opinions? You kept mentioning consensus, I didn't see any.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 14:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

And, of course, this is your opinion. At least I have cited sources to corroborate my 'opinions'. Anyhow, I would have no real objection to filing an RfC, which I believe would likely yield something similar to the current state: an equitable and balanced presentation of information, with fringe elements believing this or that and wanting to skew content (e.g., Euro-inclusionists) or what have you. Another possible outcome is indecision and a mish-mash of information, which would not be encyclopedic and serve no useful purpose.

As well, through mild rigmarole, these tables have more or less prevailed for at least a year, so per WP:CON there already is a consensus regarding this (e.g., 'silent majority'). I frankly have no stake in including this and that wherever, though many of the editors who have sought to include or exclude certain territories apparently do (and have been demonstrated as such). Eyes wide shut. Corticopia 20:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

These are not European countries, culture or people, look in any reference book, start with the CIA Fact Book. These countries should be removed from any and all association with Europe. I know many in these lands would rather be associated with Europe than their own region of Asia Minor but this should be a source of accurate information not wishful thinking. --Caligvla 16:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Muslim population percentage

An anon editor recently changed the Muslim percentage in the Religion section from 5% to 10%. The Islam by country article comes up with 6%, and some quick Googling also seems to indicate that 10% might be high. Certainly whatever the number a source should be provided, so I've added a citation tag, and reverted to the previous 5% for now. Do any of the EU agencies have a central estimate? - David Oberst 19:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

European (people)

I note that unlike other geographical areas we do not have a separate article to address the existence of "European" as a people. I accept "European" is not technically a race, or an ethnicity, but in New Zealand "European" is the most common term to describe the ethnicity of our white population.

I propose two alternate options, and would be interested to see what is preferable: a) The creation of "European (people)" to describe the geographic distribution of people with European ancestry, or who identify with European ethnicity. b) Inclusion within this article information pertaining to the existence of Europeans in Non-European countries such as South Africa, USA, Australia, New Zealand, etc.; particularly countries such as New Zealand where that population ard still considered European by most forms of official documentation. A.J.Chesswas 03:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

OK I'm going to create a separate article.A.J.Chesswas 04:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Religion

I removed the section on religion - an anonymous user changed a section about an increase in religiousness to one about a decrease but the new section seemed equally opinionated and contained weasel words. I think until some proper facts and statistics can be cited - at least so we can agree whether religion is on the rise or in decline - across the whole of Europe, the section shouldn't exist. Depending on timescale, I suspect it's possible to argue for a rise or a fall but this all needs to be put in its proper context. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 16:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is Czech Republic in Eastern Europe and Austria in the Western one?

Just because of the Cold War? Wake up and smell coffee! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.127.49.98 (talk) 11:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

The coffee has long since brewed and passed through us: it's due to the UN geoscheme. Corticopia 12:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The Czechs like to refer to themselves as being located in Central Europe. Prague is west of Stockholm after all..—Preceding unsigned comment added by Caligvla (talk • contribs)

Austrians are germans.

Austrian are Austrians. And both, Austria and the Czech Republic are in Central Europe! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.239.45 (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The Austrians are germans as much as the irish are british. (meant to refere to the austrians being austrian) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.254.12 (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Is Europe a continent? Is America two of them?

In the beginning, Europe was a continent. Then we discovered America and it was added to the party. Then the collonists revolted (because of taxes in the North, and because of Napoleon in the South, more or less), became proud of themselves, and each part (North and South) considered being a whole continent to be cool. Then some geographic standards were found to justify it. And then the criterion was applied to Europe so their former sovereigns wouldn't be a continent anymore. Finally it was thaught in schools, and each time we met the discussion arises.

Come on, "continent" isn't but a bunch of letters. This is a Newspeak problem: If you change the definition you cannot come later expectiong we accept your new definition. It makes sence techtonically and all you want, but you could have picked a new word, or at least provided a new word for the old definition, so dictionnaries wouldn't fool us into thinking that "continente" in European Spanish is the same word as "continent" in American Engish. Now we have an encyclopeadia in "English" and cannot decide what definition to use!

What are we supposed to do now? If we pick one of the definitions, our articles would result odd for the other half. Maybe we should come up with the new word...? "geographical continent"? "land-mass continent"? "traditional continent"?

Damn.

(Then we could speak of poor Pluto, and the great and enormous transcendence calling it a planet or not has in Planetary Physics. I believe old wrong scientific theories have been trashed and new discoveries have been made thanks to the new labelling.)

Skip the trolling bits in the first paragraph if you're from the American side and not in a good mood today. --euyyn 07:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Information error

This article says that the Denmark Strait lies just north of Denmark (on the blank map with text all over it). The Denmark Strait does not lie here. It lies between Iceland and Greenland. --Ysangkok 09:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I spotted that one too. Can someone in the know please fix it?

Georgia a part of europe?

I say no, If you use google most maps and even the CIA world factbook do not show georgia, armenia or azerbaijan as a part of europe but a part of Asia. Even this site lists them as a part of asian also, so I think removing that region from europe on your map and put them as a sole part of asia would make more sense.

Only those (northern) portions of the Caucasian states are included in this table, which equitably reflects the common border between Europe and Asia. Other territories are similarly treated: e.g., Russia, Turkey. Corticopia 02:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

there are different versions of where the border goes between europe and asia. there is no official border so if someone has the ambition of making objective articles without bias, they should either include all of the versions or if they chose one they should say why they chose it. CIA world factbook is not a world standard setter. there is council of europe that lists georgia in europe and BBC and many other websites as well. Please include all the versions or STATE why you chose THIS particular version of borders and not other ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polscience (talk • contribs) 11:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I say all of Rome is Europe. That includes Georgia and Northern Africa. --euyyn 09:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Culturaly they are Europeans. So yes.

Culturally, the United States of America is European. But that doesn't make it in Europe!Mariya Oktyabrskaya 17:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The United States culturally is not in Europe. the US has its own culture and being colonized by europeans does not make them european. When it comes to Georgia (and other countries in the region), it is culturally and in every other way in Europe. It is the member of council of europe which classifies it as european and they are about to join NATO ( only european nations can join NATO- the North Atlantic Treaty Organization charter says). Also the first "Homo georgicus, which lived roughly 1.8 million years ago in Georgia, is the earliest hominid to have been discovered in Europe". all the sources clearly state.Dear, Mariya Oktyabrskaya, I understand that Russians (I assume you are russian) and Georgians are not on very good terms right now and the RF does everything to stop the process of european integration, but I have to remind you that this is not a political opinion survey and we should stay as objective as possible. I completely understand that there are no Clearly defined borders and there are many versions. That is why all these people are asking is to include all of them , because none of the borders are proved to be official. I think choosing something just because you like it is not correct and makes this ensyclopedia unreliable and full of bias. Polscience (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC) Polscience 02:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

North Africa is european? are you kidding me? so now i guess the middle east is european, too. Come on, North Africa is north africa. Just the same way as Azerbaijan and Armenia and Georgia are in ASIA. an official border is an official border, people. dont try and change it, and the excuse that they have "european cultures" is absurd. They have cultures of their own, just as every other country.

Asiatic Russia isn't part Europe

Russia is asiatic country, not an Europe. Culturaly and geographicaly they, together with Mongolia and Kazakhstan, mostly belongs to asia.

And Europe finishes at the Pyrenees, Franco said. All the discussions in this page about country X being or not part of Europe can only come to one conclussion: there isn't consensus about it. And so should it be reflected in the article. Wikipedia is easy... --euyyn 21:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Someone doesn't seem to know Russian history too well. I think you will find that Russia was explored and settled by Scandinavians. Culturally, Peter the Great went out of his way to Europeanise the country. The great 19th century writers (Tolstoy, Dovstoevsky, etc.) were deliberately writing "European" novels. The Asian bit was added long after the European bit was colonised, and there has never been much happening beyond the Urals.Mariya Oktyabrskaya 23:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The western third of Russia (West of Ural) is in Europe, the eastern 2/3 (east of Ural) are in Asia.

(like Turkey: most parts in Asia, small part in Europe)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.239.45 (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 

Armenia

I know that Armenia is in Europe. So why is it not in the the table of countries in Europe. I mean if Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey are part of Europe than obviously Armenia is too. Everyone knows the controversy of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey being part of Asia right, but if now they put Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey in the list they should put Armenia in it too. It is like saying all the states of America are states of America accept for Florida. It makes no sense. An anyway I tried to put Armenia on the list and I could not, so if anybody can could they do that so others using this website will not get wrong information. Thank You.

the countries that you mentioned are transcontinental. noone can agree on borders as there are great number of versions. but one thing is clear that even though Armenia is member of council of europe, it does not have a portion of its land in Europe by any of those many versions of borders. It does not even entirely include Georgia which is more in the north and closer to borders than Armenia.--UltioUltionis (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No mention of Ummayad Dynasty and Ottoman Empire ??

Ummayyad Dynasty ruled Spain and Portugal for 750+ years, from 711 to 1492 until the Reconquesta, and Ottomans ruled major areas of Eastern Europe from Greece, Macedonia, Romania..etc all the way to gates of Vienna, for 600+ yrs. The Ummayad Dynasty had made significant advancement in technology during their era in Spain. Shouldn't there be some information about them ?. - alif.

Well, it doesn't mention Mongols either, does it? The Ottoman Empire, namely Turkey, is mentioned as well and even included into the definition of Europe, according to some rather dubious definitions. Humanophage 12:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Europe is the 5th largest continent not Antartica

If Russia is a part of Europe, then Europe is clearly larger than Antarica. The Antartica page needs to be ajusted too.

Russia is technically a part of Europe till the Urals. The definition is faulty, since it's difficult to include native Caucasian or Turkic-speaking nations into Europe, but it would be controversial to define Europe the way it was defined in the beginning of the 20th century, so they just place it all there. The rest of Russia would be roughly of the same status as Canada, had it still been a part of Britain, i.e. a major largely uninhabited territory with almost non-existent natives, mostly populated by Europeans. Humanophage 12:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

European flag

Someone objected to this being used in this article, even if the flag is meant to represent the whole of Europe, not just the EU, as expressed in the European flag article. I did revert it on principle as I thought that it would be a good idea to have some kind of debate on the matter. I understand why someone may find objectionable for it to be used but I also see the reasons for it to be in the page and leave it up to the reader to follow the link and make up his own mind. In the meantime, I will be adding a footnote explaining the matter. Regards, --Asterion^talk 23:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Tha flag is not just the flag of The EU. it was first adopted by Council of Europe many years before the EU ,although it might be more known as the EU flag. and council of europe, creator of this flag has every single european country in it (except authoritarian Belarus) so I think this flag can be called european without any problems.--UltioUltionis (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The Eastern Border Of Europe

As have been pointed out in early history the eastern border of Europe has been located at River Tanais (Strabo and others), then to River Itil (Volga), extended later to River Emba, then between the Caspian and Urals to River Jaik, (Ural). Then following the Ural mountains to Kara Sea. My grand mother when forced by the Bolsheviks to join in one of the "voluntarely young women brigades" in late summer 1919 from Petrograd to Orenburg to collect harvest there, said that the local inhabitants considered River Jaik (Ural) as the border between Europe and Asia. But here is a confusing point. The original Orenburg (a Cossack outpost and fortress) was built to the confuence of Rivers Jaik and Or at the place of current town of Orsk. Only later being removed to its current place on the confluence of Rivers Ural (Jaik) and Sakmara. When the Samara - Ufa - Zlatoust - Tsheljabinsk railway was built in 1880s a statue was placed on the border between Ufa and Orenburg Provinces between Zlatoust and Miass to mark the border between Europe and Asia in Southern Ural Mountains. Later, in Soviet era during the thirties when Magnitogorsk was built, the local inhabitants and new settlers said the "industrial city in two continents" and today it is claimed to be the only settlement in world where you can travel by tram (street car) between Europe and Asia crossing by bridge the River Ural (ex Jaik). There are some other land and memory marks which shows the border in Central Urals but the exactly border has (as far as I know) never been drawn. One claim is that it follows the border between Sverdlovsk Oblast and Perm Krai then the border between Komi Republic and Tjumen Oblast. Other sources say the border follows the highest peaks in Urals. Thus, it seems to be correct to take as border the River Ural over its entire lenght from the mouth in Caspian Sea to its springs north of Rysajevo, Lake Beloje, near Gruglaja Sopka Mountain (1016 metre a.s.l.),Peak of Uimash Mountain (874 metre a.s.l.) Nurali Heights, and then eastward to the spings of River Miass following the course of Miass River to Argazinskoje Water Reservoir, then the course of River Atkis to Lake Bolshoi Agardjash, thence over the land to Lake Ufimskoje, following the course of River Ufa to its confluence with its tributary River Visert. Then the course of River Visert to Visertskij Water Reservoir and further north of the upper course of River Visert to its springs. Then over land to the River Utka at Sabik following the course of River Utka to the confluence of its main stream River Thusovaja. Then Following River Tshusovaja to its confluence with its tributary River Serebrjakaja at Ust Serebrjakaja. Then following the course toward north of River Serebrjakaja to Podpora Gora on the border between Sverdlovsk Oblast and Perm Krai. Next logical border river is the upper course of River Tura up to the confluence with its tributary River Is just east of settlement Is. North of Is are several named heights of Central Urals just as Sarannaja, Beresovyj Uval, Murzinskij Uval, Tshernaja, Belyj Kamen (763 metre a.s.l.). Then toward north following the upper course of River Kurbja to its confluence with its main stream River Kosva. River Kosva to its confluence with its tributary River Typyl. River Typyl where it reaches the border of Sverdlovsk Oblast and Perm Krai. North of this point the current border line between Sverdlovsk Oblast and Perm Krai which run along the water shed up to Mountain Peak 1024 metre a.s.l. is the natural border between Europe and Asia. Also the border between Komi Republic and Tjumen Oblast is natural, except in the far north where in the the Pojarnyj Ural it should have been followed little more different course following Mountain Peaks of heights 1246, 1343, 1295, 1036, 1338, 1128, 718, 644, 483 abve sea level, Sejabpy Gora (174 metre a.s.l.) and thence along the course of River Ngozavesjuto to Bajdartskaja Bay at Kara Sea.

JN

Fauna

The Field Museum displays a few specimens from Europe. Would it be all right to post some images here to see if they are acceptable to the editors of this article? --Ancheta Wis 11:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Why Constantine is responsible for the spread of Christianity

I am going to give references to all the material that I am going to present. If you need more info. on the books or authors let me know. I only want to provide a honest straight narrative of the history of Europe. My point is that Constantine the Great and the Roman Empire were responsible for spreading Christianity to Europe in the 4th Century AD as opposed to the time Charlemagne was crowned by the Pope as the "Emperor of the Romans" in the 9th Century AD, which became the Holy Roman Empire and that became the Habsburg dynasty. If anyone disagrees with my explanation as why my revision should not remain, please let me know. We should come to an agreed consensus and I hope the referenced material I am going to provide proves this. I took nothing from any of the links from Wikipedia so I suggest you check these out too. I got everything from my books. I used 5 seperate books, if need be, I can provide more sources. I am kinda embarrassed but I don't remeber exactly the proper way to do historical references nor do I know the system of putting up references on Wikipedia, but I will do my best....

The year 306 AD Rome and Italy were much less vital to the empire than they had been in the days of Hannibal or Augustus, but the ancient seat of power still had sufficient mystique that possession of it made it of great moral value to its imperial possessor.(1) In the West, the struggle was Maxentius, who had seized Italy and North Africa, and Constantine, who had suceeded his father Constantius as Western Emperor. in 312 Constantine invaded Italy and defeated Maxentius at Turin and Verona.(2) Constantine himself needed a to unite and inspire his troops, with the very conception of legitimate succesion under Diocletian system. He found God, or God found him, in a vision of a cross across the sun, a phenomenon that does in fact naturally occur under proper atmospheric conditions. Having seen the amazing sight, Constantine later told a biographer of a dream in which the long persecuted Christians had shown him a 'rho'[P] crossed with a 'chi'[X] and commanded 'In hoc signo, vincere'(In this sign conquer). If for no other reason than their remarkable persistence in the face of extensive persecution, the Christians were a moral force in the empire, and the soldiers accepted the generals vision and painted their emblem upon their shields. Constantines army had victory and vision on their side.(3)

He defeated Maxentius at the Battle of Milvian Bridge and made Christianity the state religion, confiscating temple treasure and building many new churches. This left him undisputed ruler of the Western provinces.(4) In 313 at the Edict of Milan constantine granted the Christians toleration and almost immediately, with the emperors patronage, an impressive building programme of cathedrals and churches started in Italy. In a few years the enormous Basilicas of St. John Lateran and St. Peter were built in Rome. Christian bishops were allowed to give Roman citizenship to slaves, and conduct their own lawcourts. A new heirarchy and a new kind of authority had come to Italy.(5)

At the Edict of Milan, Constantine iniated the Christianization of the Roman Empire. The conversion of parts of the Roman elite and promulagation of Christianity by Roman administrators set Europe on paths towards conversion, but fairly quickly the Church gathered its own momentum. charismatic individuals, some isolated holy men and women, others popular bishops and clergy, held great sway over local populations, while shrines devoted their lives to spiritual salvation achieved renown across Europe. Impressive ecclestical practices, such as cathedrals and monasteries, based upon traditional Roman imperial structures, began to replace these on the nascent urban landscapes across the continent.(6)

In 316 Constantine felt strong enough to attack his rival Licinius seizing Greece and the Balkans. The ensuing truce lasted until 324, when Constantine finally defeated Licinius; his victory reunited the Roman Empire. He also took personal interest in theology, participating in church councils at Arles in 314 and Nicaea in 325, and baptised on his deathbed in 337.(7) At Nicaea he presided over the first ecunenical council, representing the whole church, which defined beliefs for all Christians. A full ecclesiatical organization developed, with a heirarchy of bishops and a framework of patriarchates, provinces and dioceses throughout the empire.(8)

The two halves of the Roman Empire remained linked for half a century after the reigns of Diocletian and Constantine. Only in 395 AD, with the bitter death of Theodosius, did the complete break occure(9)

So based on that information, without Constantine and the incredible sway he had over the population and the networks and well connected logistics and roads of the Roman Empire allowed Christianity to spread rapidly and uniformly. At this time the Roman Empire was from Europe(England, France to the Rhine, Belgium, Swiss, [[Austria}], Spain, Italy, The Balkans, Greece, the Near East and North Africa). This is the majority of the known world at this time and without Constantine church councils, massive religious reforms, tolerance and promotion of christianity and the Roman empires connected and integrated society and logistics this would have never been possible, and Christianity may never had the chance to grow as it did. Nonetheless, it was constantine who gave Christianity its acceptance to the empire, its freedom to develop, the money and donations provided by the emperor for it to prosper, and its greatest push to a incredibly large, homogenious(culture-wise) society. If their is any disagreement with what I am saying please let me know. But please bring references and factual material, as that is the only thing that will suffice. Thanks for reading

1)M. Spilling(editor), "Battles of the Ancient World."(Barnes & Noble, Inc, 2007)*

2)C. Scarre, "The Penguin historical Atlas of Ancient Rome."(Penguin books, 1995)

3)M. Spilling(editor), "Battles of the Ancient World."(Barnes & Noble, Inc, 2007

4)C. Scarre, "The Penguin historical Atlas of Ancient Rome."(Penguin books, 1995)

5)H. Hearder, "Italy:A short history."(Cambridge University press, 1990)

6)A. Jotischky & C. Hull, "The Penguin Historical Guide of the MEdieval World."(Penguin books, 2005)

7)C. Scarre, "The Penguin historical Atlas of Ancient Rome."(Penguin books, 1995)

8)G.Parker(ed.), "The Compact hsitory of the world."(Times books, 1995)

9)H. Hearder, "Italy:A short history."(Cambridge University press, 1990)

• Books has 5 different authors if you need me to name them let me know.(Scipio3000 22:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC))

Sorry about the confusion between the HRE and Byzantium. The article at present distinguishes between the empire of Ancient Rome and what it later became. The ancient romans worshipped a completely different set of deities and allegedly fed christians to the lions, so your unqualified inclusion of the Christian religion in the first paragraph seemed misleading. Also this very brief history mentions no individuals, so I don't think Constantine can be the one exception. Is it possible for you to include an uncontroversial reference to the decriminalization / official acceptance of christianity somewhere in the 1st or 3rd paragraph?

It might also be reasonable not to mention complex issues involving religion or religious persecution in such a short article. --Mathsci 08:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Tatarstan

Is Tatarstan in Europe or Asia ?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.186.9.3 (talk • contribs).

It's in Europe. See Tatarstan.--Húsönd 23:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Turkic languages

This is the page on Europe, so I've removed all non-European areas where Turkic languages are spoken. This corresponds to the pattern of other language, there are more than fifty countries outside Europe where a Germanic or a Romance language is the main language, but those countries aren't listed here either. I also removed some countries where the number of Turkic speakers is extremely low. There might be speakers of Turkic languages in Bosnia and in Romania, but not in the sense that there are any areas where Turkic languages are spoken in the way they are in Moldova, Macedonia or Greece. Speakers of many different languages live in almost every country in the world, but I'm again following the pattern of other language groups where very small groups aren't noted. Neither Italy nor Austria are listed as countries with Slavic speakers although there are Slavic majority areas in both countries. Finally, Kosovo is not yet a country and should not be listed as such in accordance with the policy of Wikipedia not being a crystal ball. JdeJ 14:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone please edit the part about Cyprus. Turkish is an official language( with equal weight and status) as the Greek language in the Republic of Cyprus. If someone bothers looking up the 1960 constitution then one may see for themself! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.168.17.48 (talk) 06:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Australia - a continent ? - differences, re: current edit war.

There seems to be some debate between editors to the page as to whether Australia is a continent. My experience is that 30 years ago it was considered to be such, at least in the view of lay-men. It seems currently to have been replaced by the concept of Australasia.
Given that the bulk of Australasia is still Australia, could the disputed reference to Australia being the smallest continent be replaced by one refering to Australasia (assuming the statement to still be true, of course)?
What do you think?
I would change it straight away, but I don't really wan't to make a two-sided edit war into a three-sided one !
Mariya Oktyabrskaya 16:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that since there is an article Australia (continent) which does not seem to have been put up for deletion, there is not really a debate about this point. Mathsci 19:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent reply.
Can't fault it.
Everyone happy, or should we also look at amending the Australia (continent) article?
Australasia also includes New Zealand, and as no other continent is named after a sovereign nation, the change to Australasia may have been a political thing.Mariya Oktyabrskaya 06:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The Australia (continent) article lists Australasia as a synonym of Australia (continent) FWOW. Mariya Oktyabrskaya 07:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC) http://news.independent.co.uk/world/australasia/ is the website of the Australasia edition of the Independent newspaper - the 4th most read quality daily newspaper in Great Britain, so the term Australasia does have some contemporary "serious" usage. Mariya Oktyabrskaya 07:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Slavic speaking population in Northern Greece

I've removed the statement that Slavic speaking population in northern Greece is ethnically Macedonian (Slavic, not Greek). It's a question that has never been discussed between Macedonia and Bulgaria. Some people there determinate themselves as Bulgarian from the Macedonia geographic region which covers Macedonia, parts of Greece, parts of Bulgaria and parts of Serbia. However I will not put that those people are from Bulgarian descent, because it could be considered as subjective position and it could provoke useless debates in Wikipedia. It would be best if some slavic speakers from Voden (Greek: Edessa) tell us to which ethnicity they belong.--SOMNIVM 11:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Is Poland the centre of Europe? or not?

I notice that someone has inserted the claim that the centre of Europe is in Poland.
I wonder on what basis this conclusion was reached?
Was it Half way between, say, the Azores and the Urals, and halfway between Sardinia and Nordkap (Top of Norway)?
Or was it on a weighted land mass basis?
Or was it on a weighted population basis
Or some other measure
Anyone got any sources which might shed light on it?
Or is it just a it of Nationalism, and I should delete the claim?
What do you all think?
Mariya Oktyabrskaya 17:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The statement by User:149.156.56.50 (an IP in Krakow) was not justified and has been removed, along with their other interesting WP:POV contributions. In fact the actual centre of Europe is in a small grotto in Ireland, inhabited by leprechauns. --Mathsci 18:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

To speak seriously, the actual center of Europe is in Belarus by the way.--Certh (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Lithuanians consider the geographical centre of Europe to be in Lithuania. Look the map [[5]]. But so consider many other nations. So all depends how we mesure. Roberts7 13:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberts7 (talk • contribs)

celtic nations, or "so-called" celtic nations

A user has recently dropped "so called".
What do you all think?
"So-called", because it distinguishes them from the othe lands historically occupied by the celts on their westward migration?
"So-called" because of the mixing of the celtic DNA with that of other groups (the vikings spring to mind)in at least some (and perhaps many) inhabitants of those areas?
or just an odd figure of speech that doesn't mean much one way or the other?
Views, anyone?
Mariya - x -
Mariya Oktyabrskaya 23:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

History

this history are very awesome and very timimg to go to the place so enjoy this place —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.203.157.98 (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Armenia does not belong to the middle east. however i do not see it included in Europe or Russia or Asia. Has Armenia been erased of the map or out of the article. Armenia was the first Christian country established, while everyone else was still praying to rain gods and zeuz and cats. Please consider Armenia and make the region that it belongs to clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.185.150.46 (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Islamism in France

France has a practising muslim population of 4% or more. Reference to this information has been removed three times by User:Energyfreezer from the section on religions. I am opening this section on the talk page so that he can explain to the other editors (a) why he believes this not to be the case; (b) which sources he is using to justify his claims. Please restore France to the list of countries with significant muslim populations. User:Energyfreezer is editing disruptively. --Mathsci 19:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

On my talk page User:Energyfreezer wrote:

France has been anything but muslim since the ice age or so, and just because a bunch of immigrants with islamic beliefs settle there recently, doesn't mean that it has a "significant" muslim population.

What can the phrase "bunch of immigrants" possibly mean, unless it is a form of racism? What about the pieds noirs? Mathsci 20:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added the BBC country by country guide to Muslim populations in European countries. There the muslim population of France is estimated at between 8 and 9.6%, between 5 and 6 million. No further interpretation is necessary. Please could User:Energyfreezer not repeat the following disruptive behaviour here: [6][7] [8][9] [10][11] [12] Mathsci 22:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Population table

Could someone check this please? Georgia is wrong, and others may be also. --Mrg3105 (talk) 12:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Where applicable, the figures included are those for the European portions of countries only -- Georgia, for example, has territory in both Europe and Asia, hence the lower number. However, I do believe the population figures should be updated, if possible -- perhaps from here? Quizimodo (talk) 13:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

20th century history

The section on 20th century history, as well as previous entries, has been written from one source - a National Geographic picture book - by User:Hemlock Martinis. Hemlock's unscholarly approach to writing on history has already resulted in a series of howlers and misconceptions. His unwillingness to consult more than one source has made Hemlock a troublesome and contentious editor. His schoolboy account of 20th century history is inaccurate. One of the main purposes of the history section, particular 20C history, is to explain the current division of Europe into countries. His statements about the Cold War are ill-informed and misleading; they contradict other wikipedia articles. This section is urgently in need of rewriting. --Mathsci 07:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Mathsci's been helpful in adding additional sources to the material and pointing out simple mistakes, both of which I appreciate. I thank him for his assistance in improving this vital article. However, I grow weary of his continual aggressive ad hominem attacks on my talk page and now here. He's repeatedly mischaracterized me and now is misrepresenting my source. The best I can do now is ignore him unless he decides to behave more positively. --Hemlock Martinis 08:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You should not be using ONE SOURCE. There has been no ad hominem attack: you have made a series of slips, undoubtedly as a result of using one source. That is not the way to write an encyclopedia. You have also avoided discussing your edits on this page, even though I have requested this several times. Again that is not an ad hominem attack; it is the normal method of wikipedia editing.

I appreciate your contributions in the previous sections, which have - after several corrections - improved the history section considerably. Your division into sections, introducing the possibility of adding images, was an extremely good idea. But the 20th century section has major problems.

Some more detail:

• Russia/USSR stretches to Vladivostock. Is this part of Europe?
• "incredibly" destructive - this is not the kind of phrase expected in an encyclopedia
• "Through complicated series of treaties" - this is bad english
• bad wikilink to a disambiguation page - the correct reference is Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria
• Serbian nationalist? Gavrilo Princip called himself a "Yugoslav Nationalist" and was born in Bosnia Herzegovina. He was a member of Young Bosnia.
• There were over 40 million military and civilian casualties according to the WP page on World War I. No attempt to check this discrepancy between the figure of 10-13 million claimed in the article has been made.
• "Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire collapsed completely" - oddly enough we still have the countries of Austria, Hungary and Turkey, so the word "completely" is inaccurate. Austria-Hungary presumably was a reference to the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
• The Great Depression in Europe was not caused solely by events in the United States of America. It started earlier in some parts of Europe: the Great Depression in the United Kingdom and other European countries has also been explained by debts incurred from World War I. The cause-and-effect explanation of the Wall Street Crash has not been properly justified and contradicts statements in other WP articles.
• "anti-democratic" - is a meaningless phrase. The national socialist parties were elected: there were no military coups.
• What about General Franco in Spain and Oswald Moseley in the United Kingdom?
• What happened to the international crisis brought about by the annexation of Sudetenland?
• Europe's fall from pre-eminence started already at the beginning of the 20th century.
• The Cold War involved a détente between the Western Bloc (USA, Western Europe, Japan) and Eastern or Soviet Bloc countries: "rivalry" is unsourced and unjustified WP:POV. The description of Eastern bloc countries formed as a result of post-World War II division is not explained, but is highly relevant.
• In 1990-1991 there were various different events across eastern European countries and the USSR, including the fall of the Berlin Wall. What has been written is an inaccurate and misleading description. For the purposes of this article on Europe, it seems important to explain what happended to European countries rather than the USSR.
• "crumbling" is WP:POV. This section does not discuss the struggle for independence of European-ruled countries in Africa and Asia. The struggle for independence of the former colony of the United States of America is similarly not discussed in the previous history sections. Nor is the Norman Invasion.
• A more complete historical description of the European Union is required; what has been written here is completely inadequate for an article on Europe. If it is inadequately described in the one source document, other source documents should have been consulted.

Mathsci 09:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Now the phrase "The French rule of Europe" has been reintroduced. But the French did not rule all of Europe while Napoleon was emperor: there were the battles of Waterloo and Trafalgar (he of course won in Austerlitz, commemorated tomorrow). Why not say the Napoleonic Empire? It is also not true that all European countries were affected by the Constitution of France. These generalizations and over-simplifications are easy to avoid by careful cross-checks with other sources. Mathsci 10:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I've implemented the majority of your suggestions listed above and further expanded the 20th century section. Thoughts? --Hemlock Martinis 21:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, it's a lot better. However you continue unashamedly to use ONE SOURCE. I don't think that is acceptable in an encyclopedia, particularly in articles on history.

The section is far too long with too much detail. It unbalances the section on history and the whole article on Europe; you have not managed to do a synthesis concentrating on Europe, while making appropriate reference to world history. This is the hardest period to write about, because it is so recent. Your book seems to take an American-centrist view of history. What is interesting for this article is what happened in Europe, which as an entity changed after the Fall of the Berlin Wall, politically and economically. You do not mention the separate liberation of Romania, Hungary, Czechia, etc, nor the war in former Yugoslavia, the problem renaming Macedonia, the inclusion of new eastern european member states in the EU, the formation of the Council of Europe, the problems with British entry into the EEC, etc. If your book does not treat this, you should have found others devoted to 20th century European history and used them. I would also be careful with the word superpower: Europe was not a superpower prior to 1991 and I don't know if Russia is now. It is unnecessary to use these terms, especially when they are ambiguous and could represent a point of view.

I have just been reading the book the Age of Extremes, 1914-1991, by the historian Eric Hobsbawm. Here for example one reads that the Great Slump or Depression was brought about by economic instabilities incurred by European debts from World War 1 - there was spiralling inflation in Germany and Russia in the mid-twenties - particularly debts due to the United States, which had decisively intervened in WWI and had subsequently pursued an isolationist economic policy. Hobsbawm writes that the Cold War was something of a Paper Tiger brought about by hysteria in America over the threat posed by communism; and that is why America received no support from its allies in Vietnam. Then of course, there are the wars in Iraq, which involved Europe. All this is very hard to write, if written at all; any way, whatever is written should be written much more briefly and with more than one reference. You also removed the flag and its caption on the Council of Europe: it appeared after a long period of consensus and is extremely relevant to the article. You are confusing your sysop buttons and usual editorial practice.

My suggestion is that, unless you are willing to consult a series of other references, you leave this section alone for a while and let other editors restore some kind of balance. Please enjoy your book in private now - more than enough of it appears in the article. Mathsci 04:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that you'd add other sources like you did in previous sections, but you've sunken back into an "armchair editor" position. It appears I will just have to do it myself. I didn't delete the flag image, I just removed it from the article - you're confusing a basic edit with sysop buttons, none of which I've used on this article. You seem to be contradicting yourself about the article length - first you tell me (with bold text even) that the section is "TOO LONG" and then you proceed to harangue me at length about all the things I've left out. You're just flat-out wrong about an American-centric POV. I plan to continue improving this article, with or without your pedantic and arrogantly condescending lectures. --Hemlock Martinis 05:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that: yesterday I ordered some English language history books here in France and they take time to arrive; it is much harder to summarise this part of history; and at the moment I am preparing material for an example in the article on Orbifolds. I think the page on History of Europe is quite helpful as a model, although abrupt at points. Kulturkampf, Bismarck, Garibaldi and Il Risorgimento are all mentioned there. To do this seriously takes time and the gathering of references.

You are now making ad hominem remarks. Please avoid using phrases like "armchair editor", "arrogantly condescending" and "harangue". I said far too long not TOO LONG. I said "remove" not delete. The sysop buttons did not refer to the image but to your non-consensus style of editing: the fact that you are now participating on this talk page is good.

Please remember no personal attacks; and also remember the purpose of this discussion page. You have not so far discussed specific content. On the other hand you continue to use just one source and refuse to justify yourself. I have ordered others and they take time to arrive. Please try to be more patient and assume good faith. Do not confuse the fact that I do not like the balance in what you have written with a personal attack. I have already said that other sections have benefited - after correction - from your initiatives. Please find other references, rather than resorting to personal attacks. Mathsci 06:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I've done some preliminary rearranging and clarification, based on available references. The only remaining part where I think there is possibly too much detail is the section on the events of World War II which could be shortened. I am sorry if I overreacted to your edits: it is very hard to write a short summary of this period. (Il Risorgimento and Kulturkampf should probably be added at some stage to 19th century history, if you're interested.) Mathsci 08:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added a sentence to the preceding section on the unification of Austria-Hungary, Italy and Germany together with a reference (checkable on google books or amazon.com). Mathsci 11:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that and I'd like to apologize for being a little aggressive with you in my response. I'll hold off on editing the history section until you have a chance to go over it with the new books you've ordered, then we can go from there. Again, my apologies. --Hemlock Martinis 20:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, again. I did my latest and probably last edits - just slightly shortening what you wrote for World War II, leaving some detail to hidden wikilinks. I do have extra references, but here its seems unnecessary to add anything to those you have supplied. The main thing I have added is the initial alliance between Hitler and Stalin, which is quite relevant. Please feel free to adjust this as you wish. (I find this particular part of history - with all its after-effects touching us all in so many different ways - very hard to write about, but I hope the balance is OK now.) Cheers, Mathsci 21:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks great to me. Kudos for adding the Soviet-German alliance and clearing out some of my over-wording. This section is easily the most difficult to sum up in so short a space but you've done a good job. Balance doesn't appear to be an issue, unless you can think of any issues we've missed for the 20th century - none immediately jump to mind here. Good work! --Hemlock Martinis 21:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Jersey

On the 'Jersey' article, it says that it is not part of the European Union, so why has this article included it in Europe? Lee 17:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Europe and the European Union are two very, very different concepts. -- Jao 22:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Some areas incorrect

The areas of countries from Central Asia and Western Asia are wrong (or at least disagree with the areas listed on each of those countries' pages by an order of magnitude). Someone with access to this page please change that. Wouldn't hurt to check the whole table for errors, though the rest of the 'area' figures seem OK. [GW]24.225.185.179 (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The figures give the areas of these transcontinental countries that fall within Europe, as the attached notes state. Please read the table more carefully. Mathsci (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If by reading the "table" you mean reading all the notes at the bottom of the page, then "ah, I see." Seems pretty confusing though, given the map immediately to the right of the table is different from the map linked to by "The countries in this table are categorised according to the scheme for geographic subregions." Maybe the explanation should be more visible and/or the link just mentioned more correct? How about a seperate collumn showing the total areas of countries not completely inside "Europe"? I just mention this because I came here looking for a table comparing the areas of the countries, and almost left thinking Turkey was much smaller than it really is... just think it would help disambiguate the section. [GW]24.225.185.179 (talk) 07:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that the first two sentences in this section were intended to address your point. I agree that it could be a bit confusing. Mathsci (talk) 11:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10