Talk:History of Europe/Archive 1

Cold War pic?

What's up with the cold war pictures being in a non-english language. I understand that the general idea is still conveyed, but for those looking for the specific NATO/Warsaw alliances.... ~rake

Roman economy

From the article: "The economy made many people rich, and a few people poorer, although overall the empire grew in wealth."

What is this bullshit? Most people were poor. Someone with sufficient knowledge ought to rewrite this part of the article. cun 00:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

RE

-No, there were a lot of rich people and fewer were made poorer, they were poor to begin with! Samrsharma 18:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Questions

could i question 1) the date that the committee of public safety was set up? 2) the date that austria and france opened hostilities and 3) whether rousseau is the best example of an Enlightenment philosopher? 4) When Robespierre headed the committee

also a question on whether it would be worth mentioning the Barebones Parliament of 1653, as a trasition between Commonwealth and Protectorate. In the article on the English Civil War?

---

I think this article is coming along nicely, however, could someone with a good working knowledge of the English Civil War trim it down slightly? The same for the French Revolution - it would be better to expand upon the Napolenic wars and the Congress of Vienna. These events are not covered and should be added as a priority. I have left section breaks in place as a prompt! I've made a few slight changes to the 20th century section - any ideas on a non-contentious word that could be used for "western_countries"? Wiki-Ed 13:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep it. Unless you would like to use (semi)official termimology from last years of socialist Czechoslovakia: "advanced Western countries". Pavel Vozenilek 22:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Can we move up the links to the territories to the top so that they can be found more easily??

---

Upper and lower middle ages? Those are odd terms. The only place I've seen height applied to time is in geological eras, and then lower would be older. Is this a standard of some sort?

No. If there is any kind of standard, it would be much more along the lines of Early Middle Ages, High Middle Ages, and Late Middle Ages (or possibly just Early/Late or Early/High, etc.). The Middle Ages article says the same in a paragraph about periodization. For now, I changed the headings to "Early ..." and "Later ..." from what they were. --Mrwojo 23:56 Oct 5, 2002 (UTC)

---

So, uh, I'm not clear on why minutiae of the "Spartan Cosmos" are critical to the general summary of European history. Shouldn't those be in a Sparta article?? Stan Shebs 23:18 Feb 10, 2003 (UTC)

---

The Communist-conspiracy screed that an anonymous user put in place of a brief, sober account of World War II last February presents interesting problems to a newbie. On the one hand, we are encouraged by Wikipedia policies to be bold in editing, and unafraid to replace stuff. On the other hand, NPOV requires us not to just replace another guy's version with our own version.

I have pursued the NPOV approach to an almost satirical extent, by leaving much of the stuff in, and then presenting an alternate point of view. I do not regard this as a great success: it makes the section a little incoherent and disproportionately long. Comments from those with more experience in dealing with anonymous one-shot propagandists would be welcome. Ought I just to have reverted (manually) that part of the text, and to Hell with it? -- Dandrake 06:25 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Apologies for those naive changes. The Estonian revisionist version (at least that's where the one-shot anonymous propagandist has an IP address) is gone. Anyone who wants it can recover the archived version and put it on a World War II The Suppressed True Story page. Dandrake 16:51 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

History of Europe series?

Would anyone be interested in creating a series of articles on the History of Europe to replace this page? john 17:03, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

That would be better, a short paragraph to cover hundreds of years isn't enough, each era needs its own page at the very least. Grunners 00:22, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

I totally agree, what I am really missing is an overview of the many kingdoms that existed in the past, but don't exist anymore. There should still be short paragraphs, forming a summary of the period, with a link to a more elaborate page. Also some little maps with the area. This page should have a link to every Germanic tribe or other european people that existed (ofcourse this may be a little much, so maybe a link to a page with this list). I am willing to work on this page, but I don't know much about early european history, besides the roman and greek history and the minoans in the beginning and a general knowledge untill 1450, so I miss good knowledge to make something about the many kingdoms that existed, but there are some pages already on hte site, for instance Bernicia. Oh well, who is willing to work on it? However we should be carefull not to make identical pages to already existing pages. Roman Empire has more specific information about the roman empire, but around that we can still add a lot. User:Magraggae 00:09, 19 Jul 2004 (GMT+1)

I agree that a series of articles much better covers these topics, but I believe this article is a nice reference to easily navigate the many smaller articles covering European History. DerwinUMD 22:22 December 12. (US eastern [I do not know the GMT + X fot this])

Choice of topics

The article give a fairly detailed of some events such as the English civil war or the French revolution and the current political situation but hardly mentions such events as exempli gratia:

1. Great Schism
2. the Spanish Reconquista
3. anything but the most recent History of the Balkans
4. Napoleonic Wars

and many more. I think we should trim down some details and send readers the relevent articles providing only a high level overview and then try to provide a more complete picture.

I agree, moreso as these sections do not give reference to nor are referenced elsewhere in the article. Perhaps give a brief mention to the English civil war where relevant, something more on the French revolution (since it shaped the history of the continent as a whole) as well as the Great Schism (East-West), the Napoleonic Wars and what the Ottoman empire was up to in the Balkans and beyond (ditto for reasons). I'm not so sure about the Spanish Reconquista. Klehti 01:21, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

This modern parts of this article on Europe make quite an amusing read. Not quite sure what the source is, but I have tried to un-Americanise/NPOV the bit on the World Wars (where non-European powers seemed to be featuring a bit too much). I'd be grateful if somone who knows a bit about the EU and European relations could do the same for the section on 21st century Europe. Wiki-Ed 14:11, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The last part of this article makes some rather strange comments, such as that the UN and NATO appear defucnt. This profound comment should at least be backed up with something, in my opinion it should be removed, as the concept of the UN as worthless is largely centered in the US, and is not NPOV.

The last part of this article makes some rather strange comments, such as that the UN and NATO appear defucnt. This profound comment should at least be backed up with something, in my opinion it should be removed, as the concept of the UN as worthless is largely centered in the US, and is not NPOV. Harley peters 01:11, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Seconded. Berek 12:31, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yup, those two paragraphs are downright ridiculous. —Michael Z. 2005-03-5 14:51 Z

Improvement Drive

The article Napoleonic Wars has been listed to be improved on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. To support the article, you can add your vote there.--Fenice 08:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

English Civil War

This section is way too big, larger then French Revolution or the entire 19th century section. It needs to be trimmed down - I wouldn't mind if it would become just a interlink. This article is too large as it is. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

There is no reason to have a whole section on the English Civil War in an article called History of Europe. I say we just dump it, and insert a link and reference in the 16th, 17th, and 18th century section. john k 05:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with John and Piotrus. Daanschr 16:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Trim it to a sentance or two. June 2006 -Finn

Balance needed

Why so many attention to English Civil War, not to Ancient Rome history, not to Macedonian expansion, not ro Russian Civil War, not to Crusades? Why no mention on the USSR? Also I think we should enlarge the Napoleonic Wars section.--Nixer 12:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I think we should add sections on

1.Crusades

2.Communism

3.Fascism/Nazism

Also may be we should give specilal section to Christianity --Nixer 12:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the section on the English Civil War is a little bit too big...

Is this war so important? Why we should describe here the whole war? It has its own article. We can describe the significatcy (if so) or impotancy of this war for the European history, bu the section does not contain any information on it. There were many wars in Europe. Why not Franco-Prussian war, for example?--Nixer 20:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

but edit it down to size, don't delete it entirely. That's just vandalising someone's hard work.

Then we should move it to a proper article.--Nixer 20:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

If you don't know enough about it find someone who does. There is no need for a special section on Christianity as it has its own article(s).

English Civil War has too, but influence of Christianity in History of Europe is a bit bigger, isn't it?--Nixer 20:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The Napoleonic wars section needs some enlargement, but the section following it is more significant. The Crusades should be mentioned in the medieval period, but since the "action" was outside Europe, not overly so.

Heh, really? What about siege of Constantinople?--Nixer 20:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The ideologies you've noted should be mentioned in passing in the 20th century section,

Communism developed as ideology since mid-19th century.--Nixer 20:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

but they do not deserve their own sections - this article is a broad-brush sweep of European history. Germany and the USSR both invaded Poland in 1939 so Stalin did "start" the war. Wiki-Ed 17:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Soviet invation in Poland was not a part of WW2. Much more close to the truth that Poland and Germany started WW2 invading Czechoslovakia. But still isn't.--Nixer 20:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Dont answer? If you bring back the history of the Civil War in England, I will place here the hastory of the WW1 and WW2 in Europe, Civil War in Russia, 100-years war and Franco-Prussian war, along with civil war in the ancient Rome. Ok?--Nixer 00:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Not OK. I agree that the section on the English Civil War is too long. But it doesn't mean you should do a wholesale deletion. And deleting the info about the Soviet Union's role in WW2 is pure vandalism. – Kpalion (talk) 11:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Not only long - it does not contain any useful information to add to the article. The war is already mentioned in the Renessaince section. I do not delete, but moved the information to another article. About the role of the USSR: Soviet occupation of parts of Poland were not a part of the WW2. USSR entered WW2 22 June 1941. If it was some POV or speculation, we should add another POVs, for example that Munich agreement of occupation of Czechoslovakia were things that started the WW2.--Nixer 13:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I note from your talk page that you have a history of edit-warring/vandalism and that you seem to have trouble abiding by the consensus. This page has been put together by many people and forms a balanced overview of the history of Europe. It acts like a gateway or an index page to the more detailed articles on specific periods or regions. It has many links to major articles on the topics you mention - although some important bits may still be missing. Some parts of the article are indeed too large - the English Civil War is one of them. However, it needs editing, not deleting. Some other bits could have additional emphasis and I am sure they will be improved in time - perhaps you could add something yourself instead of destroying existing work? NB your edits to the role of Stalin are simply wrong. He invaded Poland in September 1939. This happened. It is not debatable. Wiki-Ed 11:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The USSR involved in the WW2 in 1941, 22 June - this is not debatable. Any other points of view is revisionism. And of course he didnt start WW2. Paragraph on English Civil War should be mergeed with the corresponding epoch. And of course we dont need the description of military actions.--Nixer 11:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

By putting changes to two different topics in the same edit and you are mixing two different issues which need to be addressed separately. As to the English Civil war, I agree with you that it does not need its own heading on this page, but on the other hand it needs to be mentioned in more detail than the single sentence you gave it. Concerning WW2, you are removing a verifiable fact and denying that the USSR invaded Poland on 17 September 1939 is not likely you earn you much support. --BadSeed 12:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I dont deny USSR invaded Poland, I deny USSR started WW2.--Nixer 12:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Then what do you call the war between Poland and the USSR which took place in September 1939? --BadSeed 12:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

This conflict was not a part of WW2. Besides this was not a war in usual mean - Polish forces were ordered not to resist. It's occupation of some parts of Poland. It is not a part of WW2 just as Civil war in Spain, Halhin Gol incident etc. It is generally accepted that the USSR entered WW2 in 1941.--Nixer 13:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe in Russia. In Poland... and the rest of the world I think you'll find it is regarded as part of the war. Perhaps you should read the debate in the World War 2 talk pages. Wiki-Ed 13:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a pure revisionism. Give me any reputable sourse that claims the USSR entered WW2 in 1939.--Nixer 14:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

When one sovereign country invades another sovereign country's territory it is an act of war. Ordered not to resit? By whom? That's news to me. You said, "It's occupation of some parts of Poland", you cannot occupy a country without invading it, and when you invade it you

By the way, occupation can be consensual. And invasion is not a war in general (for example, foreign intervence in Russia after the Russian revolution never called as Russian-English war etc.). Ordered not to resist Edward Rydz-Śmigły.--Nixer 14:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

are at war with it. You cannot in all honesty claim that Poles fighting Germans in the west is world war two, while Poles fighting Russians in the east at the same time isn't. --BadSeed 14:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this is so. In 1939 Cherchill said that the new border between the USSR and Germany is the new anti-Nazi front, which Hitler never will break. Officially the USSR occupied parts of Poland to protect the population from the Nazis. There were many Jews in those parts of Poland. --Nixer 14:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I suppose the Winter War in November 1939 didn't happen either? No nation has ever consented to being occupied. You are the revisionist. Please keep your POV to yourself. Wiki-Ed 14:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Did you ever learned at school? Yes, Winter War is not a part of WW2, Italian invasion in Ethiopia is not a part of WW2, Spanish Civil War is not a part of WW2, Occupation of Czechoslovakia by Germany and Poland is not a part of WW2, Anschluss of Austria is not a part of WW2 and WW1 is not a part of WW2. About occupation, Germany without war occupied Czechoslovakia, Austria, Denmark. USSR without war ccupied Baltic states. US without war occupied Greenland. Occupation - moving military forces into a country, with permission of a local governmet, or without, with military conflict, or without. Occupation can be also in protection from enemy, and as a result of invitation. --Nixer 17:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

They were all hostile invasions. By your argument the invasion of France was not a part of the war because the French surrendered and allowed the Germans to occupy their country. Nonsense. The start of the war is debated and depends upon the nation involved. For Russia it may have "officially" begun in 1941, but for Poland it began in 1939 when they were invaded by Germans and Russians. Wiki-Ed 22:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

For Russia and for Poland, and for any other nation the WW2 started in 1939 when Poland was invaded by Germany. --Nixer 17:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

And the Soviet Union. And Slovakia as well. – Kpalion (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Protect the population?! Your claims are getting more and more outrageous by the minute! I will leave this discussion for now, lest I break WP:CIVIL, but I'll leave you with the story of how refugees swimming across the Bug to escape the Nazi terror would, mid-river meet people swimming the other way to escape the Soviet terror. --BadSeed 15:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Please read the sources. Official reason was to protect the population.--Nixer 17:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Official reasons are hardly relevant. Didn't Hitler think the same thing about his death camps? "Protect Germans from the Jews" etc. Doesn't mean it was right, and it doesn't mean that his people agreed with it. The Jews certainly didn't. Wiki-Ed 22:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I recently read a Polish historian (extremly anti-Soviet), who said that Jews very warmly greeted Soviet forces. Of course, this did not save most of them because Hitler later invaded the USSR, so we cant ask them directly.--Nixer 23:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Clean up

I think this article could do with some reorganisation, the section headings are a bit haphazard. I'd suggest roughly following the info box on the page, but with more detail near the end. Something like

• Prehistory
• Antiquity

* Greece

* Rome

• Middle Ages

* Early

* Middle

* Late

• Renaissance
• Early Modern
• French Revolution, Napoleon & Congress of Vienna
• 19th C
• Early 20th

* WWI

* Interwar

* WW2

• Late 20th
• Contemporary

Each of the main sections being roughly equal in length. I don't know much about pre-Revolutionary Europe, but I assume those sections would need relavent subsections. --BadSeed 21:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree it needs to be more rational, but it does need to be balanced as well. The first bit is okay - the Greek history table is ugly, but I think the article can stay as-is up until the late middle ages. The last 500 years should be dealt with carefully. To avoid putting too much emphasis on a given event or a particular nation I think it might be best if we split it up by century. Wiki-Ed 10:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Given the scope of the topic we shoud include events based on their importance, which is why I think the Fr. Revolution and it's aftermath deserves a section of it's own. It's one of the most important events in history and it affected the whole continent, so dwelling on it is not pro-French bias. --BadSeed 21:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree with BadSeed. So, my version:

• Prehistory

(Includes epoch from ancient Neandertales and Cromagnon invation on the continent to Aryan invasion from the territory of present Ukraine)

• Antiquity

* Greece

(We should include here epoch from Troyan war upto Alexander's invation and Ellinism, also 1st and 2nd Corithian congresses, Corithian League)

* Rome

• Medieval

* Dark Ages (Holy Roman Empire, Bysantine Empire)

* Upper Middle Ages (100-year war, crusades, Kievan Rus, Tatar youke, first Universities)

• Renaissance (including Reformation, Geografic discoveries, expansion into Americas and Siberia)
• Modern

( 18-19 cent: Peter I, the first "new imperator", French Revolution, Napoleon & Congress of Vienna, other events of 19th cent)

• 20th cent

* WWI

* Interwar

* WW2

* Cold war

• Contemporary (1991 - present)

My point was to try to figure out some rational scheme for the main headings, what you include inside those main headings is a completely different matter. My main concern is how to move from the Early Modern period (which I know little about) to the French Revolution & its consequences to the 19th Century in a way in which each section follows on logically from the others, with as little chronological overlap as possible (although this is to some extent unavoidable). --BadSeed 02:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Clearly the second poster (Nixer) doesn't fully agree because he just created a completely new structural design. And I am afraid I disagree with both of you. "we shoud include events based on their importance" is POV and very much subject to debate. History is about cause and effect so the main headings should be laid out by time period. The alternative is to have a situation in which people will be continually coming in and changing the article to include what they think were the most important events. The sub-headings are a different matter, and for them it might be better to proscribe a format: eg. Sub-heading, Main article link, 250 words of description. The main headings would be split by period as follows:

Prehistory

Antiquity

?

16th century

17th century

18th century

19th century

20th century

Obviously there will be a cross over and where a sub-heading crosses from one period to another we'll need to make a decision on where it should go (eg. The French Revolution in C18 and Napoleonic Wars in c19). Later centuries have more detail because we have better records and because they are more relevant to the present. There should be nothing on the last 20 years (so no 21st century section). That is not "history". Wiki-Ed 10:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

16th and 17th centuries are parts of Renaissance. No reason to separate 18th cent. and Napoleonic wars.--Nixer 11:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, at least we agree that the current layout should be improved. When I mentioned including events based on their importance I was trying to think of some criteria for including X in the article, because we obviously cannot include everything. Sure, it could lead to some POV problems, but it doesn't have to. Taking an example from the current 19th C section, the Serbian Uprisings IMO are not important enough to merit inclusion, as their effect was rather limited, (some ppl of course, for example Serbians, might disagree), the 1848 revolutions on the other had, which affected most of the continent and spured many social changes aught to be mentioned, but are not.

As to the sections themselves, I strongly disagree with dividing the article by centuries, mainly because history rarely fits into neat self-contained 100 year chunks. A historian writing about the 19th C would start at 1789 (or sometimes 1815) and end at 1914, writing from 1800 to 1899 serves little purpose as it misses the begining and the end of the period. Specifically, concerning your proposed divisions, I don't see your logic in having names of periods up to Renaissance and then chaning to centuries from Early Modern onwards. More specifically the term "Dark Ages" is no longer used, Early Middle Ages is the more common name for the time period. And just looking over my original suggestion, it turns out that a lot of historians include the Renaissance inside the Early Modern period. --BadSeed 11:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Your last paragraph highlights some of the problems in using named main headings - they are subjective and would be limited to a particular place at a given time where they overlap. And it's pretty much what we've got at the moment - we'd end up with a patchwork coverage of what certain contributors judge to be important. I agree with you that there is a problem with the article - and I think - as you do - that it is probably the transition from "early modern" that is causing the problem. However, I am not too happy about the dates method so maybe instead of trying to do a broad-brush sketch of the structure we should list what needs to be included. I'm going to start a new section (below) of IMPORTANT European historical events. Wiki-Ed 12:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, this should be based on historical importance.--Nixer 13:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Important headings for the modern period (post 1500)

Please insert things you feel were important to overall European history in this period. The aim would be have small sub-headings with a link to the topic's main article and a short bit of text (~250 words) only.

From ~1500

• Renaissance
• Early Colonialism
• Reformation
• English Civil War
• War of Spanish Succession
• Industrial Revolution
• Empire building
  • Russian Empire formation
  • French Empire
  • Fall of the Holy Roman Enpire.
  • Austrian Empire
• French Revolution, Napoleonic Wars and Congress of Vienna
• Imperialism
• Revolutions of 1848
• Reunification of Germany (this includes expansion)
• Reunification of Italy
• World War I
• Inter war period
  • Fall of Russian Empire, Russian civil war and the formation of the USSR.
• World War II
• Cold War
• European Economic Community

To ~1985

Cornerstones

Why to devide the Middle Ages into Early and Middle?

I suggest these cornerstones:

• Antiquity - upto Fall of Western Roman Empire
• Middle Ages - from Fall of Western Roman Empire to Fall of Eastern Roman Empire
• Renaissance - from Fall of Eastern Roman Empire to ???? (~1700)
• Modern - to ???? (~1900)

Renaissance and Reformation

The Renaissance and Reformation section states that by the 15th Century powerful nation states had been formed. This is simply not true.

The idea of Central Europe adopting religious tolerance is also a flawed one, with the reality being much more complex. --Hahaandy1 15:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Europe divided into eras

Does Renaissance deserve to be one of the seven eras of European History? We have Prehistoric (a long time ago-appx 700 B.C., Classical Antiquity (appx 700 B.C.-400 AD), Middle Ages (400 AD-1400/1500 AD), Renaissance (1400/1500-1550), Early Modern (1550-1900), and Modern (1900-Present). The Renaissance was about a century according to these highly oversimplified eras.

To divide Europe into seven eras is stupid, but to divide it into those seven is just plain retarded. No other word works. The Renaissance is put as the middle era, as well as by the far the shortest, excluding maybe modern. The entire purpose of that is to prop up the importance of the Renaissance. As a student of history and a hater of the myth of the Rennaisance, I find this to be an uneducated assessment. Europe should be divided into more sections than just a mere Renaissance-favoring seven. Bsd987 18:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd add that pretty much any definition of the "Early Modern Period" ends with the French Revolution in 1789. I've never seen 1550-1900 defined as a single period before. I'd say to have the Middle Ages go to 1500, then the Early Modern Period (1500-1789), then the Modern Period (1789-present). Or else have more sections. john k 20:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Feudalism

Feudalism is a controversial concept. I think it is used too easily in this article. Especially the phrase that capitalism replaced feudalism is to easy. It is better to say that capitalism replaced an exchange-economy where products are made near to place where it is consumed. That has nothing to do with feudalism.--Daanschr 16:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Paper?

Can someone please give me about 10 topics on Ancient Europe for a paper? It needs to be about 120 pages and they need to be separated by civilization and i need the complete history of each topic.

dyohw

balance

I'm afraid this article is quite unbalanced; this is "History of Europe", the entire "The English Civil War and Unification with Scotland" section should get a sentence or two under "Early Modern Age". "The French Revolution", "Napoleonic Wars" and "Congress of Vienna" should be collapsed into a short "1790s to 1810s" section (these are notable events, but still only 20 years in an article with a scope of several millennia). dab (ᛏ) 10:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Pre-Helenistic Eras

The Pre-historic and Iron Age sections need to be cleaned up. They take up too much space and have too little content. -Finn

Hannibal

Could members of this project please take a look at Hannibal and respond to the Associated Peer Review. Thanks. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

On WWI

Just one small correction. Yugoslavia was not created after WWI but after WWII. The country created after WWI was Kingdom of Serbs Croats and Slovenians.

---

From euroheritage.net:

I added a map to the middle of the article showing the major dates and efforts of European conversion to Christianity en masse. I hope it will not be treated as spam. Its accuracy can be verified on the national history articles of the respected countries on Wikipedia, as I checked them to make sure it was appropriate.

Also to note, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, ruled by a king, changed its name in many regions to Jugoslavija to promote the pan-South Slavic nationalism after WWI, before WWII. It would not be wrong per se to call it Jugoslavija, but the name you given is more proper for the period before Tito and the partisanry during German and Hungarian rule.

BC or BCE?

I was linkd here from History of the world, and I noticed that while that article uses BCE, this one uses BCE. I do not want to start a debate over the system (honestly, I support the BC/AD for reasons not necessary to discuss). I merely wanted to ask if wikipedia has a policy about dating systems, whether for constancy in articles, NPOV, or current academic practice. I don't think it should be changed otherwise, but someone should probably go check about this when next improving the article. I don't want to mess with it myself, but I'm sure someone else does. Garnet avi 13:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not from this article, so I couldn't speak about the standards here, but the general wiki policy is:"Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but should be consistent within an article." There's a general rule as well that editors shouldn't go around making a fuss about the system in any particular article unless there's a good reason for doing so. "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." The relevant link is: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Eras. There was a big discussion over at Wikipedia:Eras as to whether this policy should be changed or not, but the whole issue proved inconclusive. There've been similar debates over Commonwealth/American spelling across the Wiki too. The general consensus now is that editors should simply be polite and not engage in lame edit wars over these sorts of things.Geuiwogbil 19:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Histories of present-day territories

Given that there's already an infobox providing links to the histories of the various nations composing Europe, is this lengthy section necessary? The only difference I can see is a list of footnotes discussing the validity of the term "European". I'd think that if there were a particular need for a discussion of the boundaries of Europe in this article, it would best be served as a section unto itself, either at the top or the bottom of the article. (I seem to remember the introduction of Norman Davies "Europe: A History" had a similar idea, discussing the place of the British Isles and Russia in a history of Europe. It doesn't seem like it would be too out of place here.) I feel that the section is mightily listy, and takes up an unwholesome part of the article. If there's an ongoing discussion of the place of the infobox, (not unexpected, seeing as there are two with the same title) I apologize for my ignorance. Thank you for your time, and good luck on the article. Geuiwogbil 19:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Seeing this article crop up on my watchlist again, I looked on the talk page to find no response to my earlier questionne. Thus, feeling a bit bold with my curleque hairstyle, I took out the section with a well-aimed edit. Sorry to offend your tea-drinking sensibilities. Cheers. Geuiwogbil 22:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Dates

Do you think it would make sense to add approximate dates to each of the eras covered in this article, preferably in the titles of each. I.E. Bronze age (~XXX BC - ~ YYY BC). DerwinUMD 22:24 December 12. (US eastern [I do not know the GMT + X fot this])