Talk:Europe/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Europe (the concept) does not "date back to classical antiquity"

In the intro, the article states that the concept of Europe dates back to classical antiquity, but no source is cited. I think that Europe is a concept that evolved out of Christendom after the reconquest, i.e., at the end of the end of the "middle ages" and beginning of the modern period. 76.16.59.149 (talk) 05:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)ProfessorD.us

Please read the Definition and Etymology sections first and then come back if you still think the concept of Europe dating back to antiquity is an unsourced claim. There is also the world map of Herodotus in the Definition section which divides the world into Europe, Asia, and Libya if you think they did not have a concept of Europe back then. Cadiomals (talk) 06:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2014

Hi, Istanbul is not part of the europe, it's under discutions but really not in the europe 89.93.94.159 (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 23:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Languages of Europe

I don't understand the map of European languages, there are dozens of languages not mentioned in the map like Neapolitan, Sardinian, Asturian, Occitan, Mirandese etc. On the other hand, the map includes Galician, which is co-dialect of Portuguese, much like the Flemish dialect and the Dutch language. I suppose this map should have some serious revising by language experts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.82.128.83 (talk) 11:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Largest Cities

Order of largest cities in info box is wrong. Must be edited according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_cities — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.173.81.5 (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Biggest cities

The list of Europe's biggest cities has to be enlarged by one: Hamburg as municipality as well as its metropolitan region has a bit more inhabitants than Warsaw.--Ulamm (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It depends on the source. By many sources there are quite a few cities larger (Hamburg, Lisburn, Naples, Brussels, Birmingham...). We could possible remove Warsaw since there's not many cities that contend Rome and Kiev. And the list is already fairly long. Rob (talk | contribs) 00:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested change by an administrator: Denmark is part of Europe proper on pictured Münster map

In the picture text "Europa regina map from Münster (1570). The British Isles and Scandinavia are not included in Europe proper", I would like to either

1) add "parts of" before "Scandinavia", or

2) add "(except Denmark)" after "Scandinavia",

as Denmark ("Dania") is quite clearly depicted as part of Europe proper on the pictured map. Would an administrator please make that change (using one of the given wordings or a similar one), as the page is currently fully protected?

Thanks in advance! --Jhertel (talk) 13:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Istanbul

Hi AbelM7. Geographically, most sources define part of Turkey as being part of Europe. More then 6 million of Istanbul's population live in Europe, making it about the 6th largest urban area in the continent, and well worthy of inclusion. Regardless of what polity European Istanbul is within, it is one of the largest urban areas in Europe. Your claims that it isn't European are POV. Politically Turkey is well integrated into Europe. Are you making some cultural distinction here? And why don't you remove inclusion of Turkey from the article body? Europe#Definition includes European Turkey. Rob (talk | contribs) 23:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Only 3% of Turkish land is in Europe. Turkey is an Asian country. My claims that it isn't European aren't POV. Turkey tries to be European so of course it will try to integrate with Europe but it will never be a European country. Just because a country has 3% of its land in Europe, does not make it a European country. The European Union also thinks that Turkey isn't European so they won't accept Turkey. AbelM7 (talk) 06:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The European part of Istanbul is one of the largest urban areas in Europe, by most definitions of Europe. If it's in Europe, how is it not a European city? Rob (talk | contribs) 13:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Because it's a Turkish city. Turkey is an Asian country. AbelM7 (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

POV. Rob (talk | contribs) 21:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

It's POV that Turkey is part of Europe. AbelM7 (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

How is Moscow European, but not Istanbul? Most of Russia is in Asia, so is it an Asian country? Rob (talk | contribs) 21:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Russia and Turkey are two different countries. Russia started out in Europe and later expanded into Siberia (Asia). Russia used to own Alaska (North America) but that did not made it a North American country. Russia's capital, Moscow, is located in Europe. Most of the Russian population are located in Europe. The Russian language is a Slavic language, a European language. Turkey has its roots from the Ottoman Empire which started out in modern day Turkey and later expanded into other parts of Asia, Europe, and Africa. AbelM7 (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

That logic's incredibly problematic. Is Cayenne, a city that is part of France and located in South America, not a South American city, but European? Is Novosibirsk, a city that is part of Russia and located in Asia, not Asian, but European? Both are inhabited by people closely associated with native Europeans. Identity aside, the part of Istanbul in Europe, is in Europe. Identity, which will always be POV since many Turks like to consider themselves European but some Europeans don't, is probably not the best way to define, what are predominately geographic entities. Rob (talk | contribs) 00:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Fine. If you want Istanbul on the list, go ahead, it's not a total damage to the page. But either way, Turkey is an Asian country and not European. AbelM7 (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

A portion of Turkey is indeed European. Most of Turkey is in Asia, specifically West Asia, but Eastern Thrace is definitely a part of Europe, regardless if the land is occupied by a Turkic nation. Claiming that Turkey as a whole is Asian is false. Nicholas ^(Alo!) 22:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Birthplace of Western culture?

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

Western culture (whatever one actually means with that) has had so much influence from various sources that I would not try to pinpoint the birthplace of it to be Ancient Greece and Rome, especially in the introduction. One is free to explore the complexity of the history of Western culture in its own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.11.250.154 (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Most populous cities list

I searched around for a few European cities both on and not on the list in the fact box, and it doesn't seem to list a logically coherent number of cities. Several cities, including Stockholm, Helsinki, Barcelona, Lisbon, Oslo, Copenhagen, Tallinn, Riga, Dublin, Budapest, Zurich and even more Spanish, Italian, British, German and Russian etc. cities might be able to make the list. Was the list compiled from another Wikipedia page list of the world's most populated cities or something? If not, why? Is the list recently updated? What's the lower limit for population? What constitutes a city/ city's population? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.8.233 (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The list is based on urban areas from numerous sources. City jurisdiction is not representative of the actual size of the city, and metropolitan area includes, separate, satellite cities. – Rob (talk | contribs) 11:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The English flag next to London seems out of place when all the other cities are shown by sovereign state. To fit the list should it not be the UK flag, irrespective of people's opinions about the future of the UK?

--PRL1973 (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

That was a recent addition, I've reverted it. – Rob (talk | contribs) 11:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Etymology - The word Europe's geografical spread

How did the word Europe spread as a term used for the geographical area of Europe? I found these maps showing Europae on a very isolated area. I know a finnish person who have relatives nearby this area and it turns out that there is an area there which name in finnish is pronounced like "Europe". From what I've read the area was a major hub for east/west traveling and political exchange.

And here we have Europae over the todays Russia.

Wouldn't it be worth mentioning this and possibly try to find out the background to this?

--Roberth Edberg (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source and not original research, then yes, probably worth mentioning. Bazonka (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Top 10 urban areas in Europe

Ankara is the capital of Turkey, which is considered to be politically part of Europe. No consensus has been established regarding Ankara as I've found no reference to the city in the talk page archives. Furthermore, it would be nice if people read the reference link and actually sort the urban areas according to how they've been listed there, instead of sorting the cities according to their own tastes. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Europe is primarily a geographic not a political entity (as opposed to EU). It is generally accepted that Dardanelles and Bosporus, Ural Mountain range and Caucasus mountains (although the latter is less clear) are the borders of Europe. It is also generally accepted that European institutions are open to countries that are at least partially within geographic Europe. That does however all suggest dominance of the geographic definition. For Turkey that means that Istanbul is (at least partially) within Europe but Ankara is not (and neither is e.g. Vladivostok).

In any case I am not convinced adding these cities is relevant at all as cities tend to be political at least in part, which is asking for nationalist reordering of cities forever. Arnoutf (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

There's no point in discussing this. The list is limited to ten. Neither Berlin or Ankara are larger then the current ten according to the source. Rob (talk | contribs) 17:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC) I can't count. Rob (talk | contribs) 17:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The 'politically part of' logic is incredibly problematic. Is Cayenne, a city that is part of France and located in South America, not a South American city, but European? Is Novosibirsk, a city that is part of Russia and located in Asia, not Asian, but European? Both politically part of 'European' countries.

Europe is a geographic entity. Keeping to geographic definitions for a list of cities located in a geographic entity is probably best.

Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 17:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

London isn't in geographic Europe either, if we want to apply strict geographic definitions. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, there's a huge difference between a French-controlled city in South America and a city of a country that's considered to be at the crossroads of two continents and part of both. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Being an island does not disqualify you from being part of a continent. Otherwise even river or lake islands should be classified as outside the continent (Île de la Cité not Europe???). The British Islands are part of geographic Europe; there have been historic landbridges and it is on the European tectonic plate. Iceland would be a better example as that island formed around a volcano on the breach between the European and American tectonic plate.

Politically Turkey is on the crossroads and hence part of both. Geographically parts of Turkey are in one, parts are in the other continent. To follow through Rob984's argument (somewhat in absurdum) if we assign country that are geographically in two continents as being in two continents (full stop), Paris (Guyana) and London (Falklands) should be listed among the largest cities of Southern America. Ridiculous.... Yes. But very similar to naming Ankara European. Arnoutf (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. Continents conventionally include only islands on there continental shelf. There are exceptions however, such as Iceland. Rob (talk | contribs) 18:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

First of all, there's no such thing as a European tectonic plate. Secondly, the UK isn't in geographic Europe at all; none of the island nations that are considered European are located within the conservative geographic boundaries of Europe. Thirdly, listing Paris as a South American city just because France has an overseas territory in South America is not a good argument/example. In Turkey's case, the territory is contiguous and the boundaries of Europe are neither clearly defined nor standardized. The analogy is therefore weak. France may have overseas territory in South America but the country is politically considered European, therefore you wouldn't expect statistics related to France to be used for South American topics. And that's precisely the point that I was trying to make earlier, which is that Turkey's political affiliation with Europe is more important in this case. Ankara is a larger city than Barcelona, Berlin and Rome and it belongs to a country that is, by many definitions, considered European. So why should it be excluded when it is important for the average reader to appreciate the real population-based rankings of the referenced urban areas? --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry tectonic plate was not the right wording - continental shelf as Rob984 lists is more accurate.

Where do you get the idea from the UK is not in geographic Europe? Because it is an island? - So is Ile de la City (in the centre of Paris). I just don't agree that the UK is not in Europe and I challenge you to provide sources that support your claim.

The French territory, like the Turkish territory is separated by water (albeit it somewhat more than the Bosporus in the French case). Also, following your argument Vladivostok would be European (inside Russia - continuous territory). Do you really think Vladivostok is in Europe?

You repeatedly claim that Turkey is European by many definitions. We agree that a small part of Turkey is geographically European, and that in some political situations it is dealt with (but as far as I know never defined as completely) European. However, as the example of France clearly shows, cities being on continents is about geographic location not about political affiliation. The Wikipedia article on Turkey defines it as mostly located in Asia (97%); it is in that part that Ankara is located and therefore Ankara is an Asian and not a European city; and should therefore not be listed with Europe. (Similarly about 3% of France is overseas territories that are considered integral part of France - which means that is Ankara can claim to European, it is indeed NOT a bad comparison with Paris being Southern American). Of course, again, if you manage to provide reliable sources that support your claims we may be able to discuss further. Arnoutf (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Biggest Cities

Essen-Dusseldorf is not a city, they are two standalone cities, Dusseldorf and Essen 195.240.45.222 (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The source treats a conurbation as a single city regardless of number of municipalities. There is something to be said for that as London, Paris and Athens as we know them consist of several municipalities; but it also results in some oddities (like Essen Dusseldorf, but also how it deals with Rotterdam and The Hague). Odd, yes, but hard to avoid to adopts some kind of one size fits no-one criterion...... or drop the cities altogether. Arnoutf (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Possibly just stating 'Dusseldorf' (the largest city within the Essen-Dusseldorf urban area) would be more appropriate considering, in contrast to the source, this is a list of cities by urban area, not urban areas by size, and Essen is part of Dusseldorf's urban area. Rob (talk | contribs) 00:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Essen with 550000 inhabitants is only marginally smaller than Dusseldorf 590000; so stating that Essen is part of the Dusseldorf urban area is about as weird as stating that the Hague (pop 505000) is part of Rotterdam (pop 618000). Either we talk about urban areas and do not mention cities - OR - we mention cities, but that would be problematic as (as I mentioned above) cities are split up in different ways in countries. In any case making judgement calls what to adopt from a source and how to change it would be original research and we do not want to go there. Arnoutf (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Shouldnt eurasia be referred to as a continent?

Flag

I added the flag of Europe to the infobox awhile ago which was reverted because a editor claimed it was the flag of the EU, not the whole of Europe. My understanding is that it is the flag of the whole continent, which is also adopted by the EU. According to the Council of Europe: 'It has now become the symbol par excellence of united Europe and European identity'. Thoughts? Rob (talk | contribs) 14:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Sources: [1] [2]. Rob (talk | contribs) 14:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Geographical continents have no flags, as flags are socio-political and continents are not. None of the other continents have a flag.

This is the same for Europe, as seen by reading the sources. Neither source claims it is the flag of the continent. Source 1 claims: "the European flag and emblem represent both the Council of Europe..." the second source claims "European flag is the symbol not only of the European Union but also of Europe's unity and identity in a wider sense". Both of these claims relate to political rather geographical issues. So no, it is not the flag of the geographical continent - it is the flag of the political Council of Europe and of the socio-political ideal of European unity Arnoutf (talk) 16:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 02:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Thanks for the work cleaning up this article. Good to see that apart from some minor issues you fixed, it seems this article is not too bad as is. Arnoutf (talk) 09:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Disputed Countries?

Good Morning,
I removed from the template the words "6 disputed countries", since this expression is not present neither in the article nor in the list given near the information. Moreover, it is unsourced. Please feel free to readd with a reliable source, nevertheless considering that the main focus of the article as from the first sentence of the introduction is about Europe in a geographic sense, not political, and if for "disputed countries" are considered those politically but not geographically European they should be mentioned as such in the template. Alex2006 (talk) 06:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, Kutsuit, can you please explain me the meaning of these 6 disputed countries? In text I could not find anything about them. Alex2006 (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Do not address me. Address the content, not the person, or you'll be reported. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 11:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I address you, Kutsuit, since you reverted me, so apparently you don't agree with my edit. Alex2006 (talk) 12:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe Kutsuit is referring to Kosovo, South Ossetia and such. See List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe#Partially recognised states  NQ  talk 12:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Now it is clear. I will change the denomination and the link in the template, to avoid misunderstandings. Alex2006 (talk) 12:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Coat of arms

There are many missing coat of arms in the European countries list and Greece's coat of arms is mistaken. See Coat_of_arms_of_Greece — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.106.109.169 (talk) 10:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

biggest cities ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_proper_by_population

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_cities_in_Europe

What else do you need ? That list is wrong from beginning. I believe we should set a designated source for it. Denizyildirim (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia. The current list is sourced to one source (see note 1), which has all the necessary definitions and criteria. --2.150.48.151 (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Then wikipedia is wrong too. Denizyildirim (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Both of those lists are of 'city proper' (administrative boundaries). Here we have chosen to base the list on urban area because urban area is more representative of the size of a city then the administrative boundaries. Some cities don't even have clear administrative boundaries, such as London. Rob (talk | contribs) 21:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you friend, but we also don't know the urban populations of Istanbul and London, and they may as well be bigger than London, so why not use city proper as all of them have that one. Or list them alphabetically ? Denizyildirim (talk) 08:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem with London is illustrative, but not unique. London is divided into many administrative units that are all fairly small. For example the city of London has only about 7500 inhabitants (smaller than many villages!). (similar issues occur for Athens, Rome and to some extent Paris). The different ways in which countries deal with splitting up urban areas into smaller administrative units makes straightforward comparison irrelevant. Urban area is a measure developed by international organization with the aim to make comparisons possible in spite of differences in dealing with administrative units and definitions of city proper. Arnoutf (talk) 09:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Why Rome? Rome is just the opposite. Alex2006 (talk) 09:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Geography images.

The choice of images in this section is extremely unbalanced. 4 out of the 6 images show the Mediterranean (the actual water thereof).

In addition the choice of the other 2 images increases this bias towards the southern parts of Europe. Currently the most southern image are at 35 degrees North (Cyprus - if that is unambiguously consider Europe at all); which is about the most southern point of Europe. The Northern images are at about 45 degrees. Norways most northern islands extend beyond 80 degrees. Hence the pictures represent less than 25% of the North South range of Europe. We show no fjords, no polar seas, no northern marshes etc etc.

This was not a big issue before, but with the addition of 3 pictures today the balance is really off now. I have been bold and trimmed the number of pictures. When adding new ones (if we want to) we should ensure they represent the whole of Europe, and not only touristic sun destination. Arnoutf (talk) 12:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Europe's population ( 1950-2010-2050 )

How much will the population of Europe in 2050 (including future immigrants)?

Country : 1950 - 2010 - 2050

Germany : 68.4 - 82.3 74.4 million

UK : 50.6 - 62.1 - 72.8 million

Italy: 46.3 - 60.5 - 59.1 million

France: 41.8 - 62.7 - 72.4 million

Spain: 28.1 - 46.1 - 51.3 million

Poland: 24.8 - 38.3s - 34.9 million

Turkey: 21.2 - 72.7 - 91.6 million

Romania: 16.3 - 21.4 - 18.5 million

Dutch : 10.1 - 16.6 - 17.1 million

Hungary: 9.4 - 10.1 - 9.2 million

Czech Rep.: 10.5 - 8.9 - 8.7 million

Belgium: 8.6 - 10.7 - 11.6 million

Portugal: 10.6 - 8.4 - 9.3 million

Greece: 7.6 - 11.4 - 11.6 million

Bulgaria: 7.2 - 7.5 - 5.4 million

Sweden: 7.1 - 9.4 - 10.9 million

Austria: 6.9 - 8.4 - 8.4 million

Denmark: 4.2 - 5.5 - 5.9 million

Finland: 4.1 - 5.3 - 5.6 million

Norway: 3.3 - 4.9 - 6 million

Ireland: 2.9 - 4.5 - 6.6 million

Malta: 312 - 417 - 415 thousand

Luxembourg: 296 - 507 - 708 thousand

— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Let's not divine the future WP:CRYSTAL Arnoutf (talk) 14:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Turkey

Has never been considered European, this is puzzling, if it was in EU then that could be understandable in an article about the EU. How do you consider these countries European. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.59.237 (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Geographically the Bosporus is the separation between Europe and Asia. Part of Turkey is on the European side of the Bosporus - hence it is correctly mentioned in the Europe article. Arnoutf (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I also was taught in school that Turkey was part of Asia and not Europe, but that is not the point. In the Asia section it says that Turkey is part of Asia in the Europe one it says that it is part of Europe. If it's part of both then it should say so in both sections otherwise people who only read one might get the wrong idea, especially since a lot of people read wikipedia to learn stuff they don't already know.188.24.8.123 (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Eastern Thrace part of Turkey is located in Europe so Turkey is a Transcontinental country an aslo there is a note on Turkey which states that. BTW if Turkey isn't considered in Europe then how come its application was granted? Morocco's was rejected as you know.. kazekagetr 14:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Application to be what? There is no board that can grant applications about being part of a continent as far as I know. Arnoutf (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Apllication to be a member state of EU of course. kazekagetr 19:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Why would that be of any interest to the article about the geographical continent? That should be addressed in EU articles not here. Arnoutf (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

How many continents?

I would appreciate some advice from the regulars about the contentious material regarding the number of continents. I have reverted to the version which had the reliable sources and which seems to me to be the best version. You can take it from there. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Problem is that continents are somewhat ill defined. Especially the Europe-Asia division around the Ural mountain range does not follow the general idea that continents are a continuous landmass. However since this article is named Europe and not Eurasia, that should not matter too much and we should probably follow the Europe-Asia division; at least here, and leave the tricky issues for the continent article. Arnoutf (talk) 06:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Arnoutf. Moreover, the used source does not give us enough information: I would like to know who are the geographers and the countries which define Eurasia as a continent, otherwise there is the risk of giving undue weight to this info, putting it in the lead. Alex2006 (talk) 07:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

But the National Geographic reference is pretty clear about that. It says "by convention there are seven continents", which is a strong statement favouring the seven-continent model. It then goes on to explain the six and five-continent configurations. So there is no bias for the six-continent model as claimed in this edit. I think Nat Geo is a very reliable source. Now, if the issue of the six and five continents has to appear at the lead per WP:UNDUE, this is a different matter and should depend on similar intros to articles of the other continents. But personally I think it is ok, since the six and five-continent models are recognised alternatives and are specifically mentioned by Nat Geo. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 14:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not exactly sure what you are saying here. Do you suggest to include the six/five continent interpretation, or do you suggest not to include. My point of view would be that this is all very relevant to the continent article (where it is discussed in some detail including alternative 6 continent versions (Americas - or Eurasia)). As this article is about Europe, and not Eurasia, I would stick with a continent definition that defines Europe as its own continent. Whether that would be a 6 continent definition with the Americas as a single continent or the 7 continent definition, would be unduly detailed for the Europe article in my view. Arnoutf (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I am saying three things: 1. The editor who reverted the Nat Geo source using the edit-summary: Reverting sudden changes that is bias in favor of the 6 continent model that is not universally accepted. is not correct because the Nat Geo source mentions all three (7,6,5) models and also specifies that the 7-continent model is the one used by "convention". 2. The coverage of the seven, six or five-continent models at the lead of this article should depend on similar coverage in the leads of other continent articles. 3. FWIW, I am not opposed to including some information about the alternative continent models at the lead but at the same time I keep an open mind for alternative cases. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 14:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

All clear, but I repeat that I would like to know which geographers and which countries are for the six continents model. The statement of NG is too vague: physical geography is a science, and as such we should have precise (not just clear) references. If the six continent model is supported only by the kingdom of Roccacannuccia and its geographers, is one thing, if it is taught in the Russian schools, it is a quite different thing, and in that case it can assume a quite different weight in the article. Alex2006 (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Why don't we leave this discussion for elsewhere by rephrasing the opening line as "Europe (i/ˈjʊərəp/ or /ˈjɜrəp/[2]) is one of the world's continents." and leave it at that, in any case for the lead. Arnoutf (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

At the lead of Australia (continent) it says: It is the smallest of the seven traditional continents in the English conception.. Maybe we can go by that. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

OK for me. Alex2006 (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Works for me too. Arnoutf (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Great. Perhaps we can modify the phrase "English conception", which I'm not sure what it means, to: ...seven traditional continents according to the conventional definition or something along those lines. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't like the phrase either, but I guess it is meant to give to which point of view it is traditional (see Continent#Number_of_continents), where Japan, Russia and some Eastern European countries apparently traditionally use the 6 continent (with Eurasia) and Hispanic countries apparently traditionally use a 6 continent versions (with Europe and Asia, but with the Americas as 1). So I think the phrase English conception means something like "in the English speaking tradition".

So perhaps: ...seven traditional continents following the traditional definition of English speaking countries might cover that? Arnoutf (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. But are we sure all English-speaking countries follow that convention? And are there any non-English-speaking countries who also follow it? In that case perhaps we should just use "the conventional definition" just like Nat Geo. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems this article is supposed to be exclusively about Europe as a "continent". If so, then there should be no references to the EU, Council of Europe, or any other organizations or notions that define Europe differently than the traditional 7 continent model (which should be called the 7 continent "truth" if it's the only model that's accptable) Also the article should be retitled "Continent of Europe" or "European Continent". At present, some diversity of interpretation is present in the form of references to the EU et al. But what about the alternative idea of Europe as a subcontinent, as is implied by the 6 continent model that treats Eurasia as a single continent. If India is a subcontinent by virtue of being separated from the rest of the Eurasian landmass by a range of mountains, then surely Europe can be interpreted in the same way due to its separation by a range of mountains. If not, then why is Europe a full continent and India/Pakistan et al only a subcontinent? What is the physiographical, geographical, and geological logic of this double standard? I tried to introduce this to the article using a referenced source, but another editor, AbelM7, has reverted me several times insisting the Europe is a full continent and only a full continent, and that no other interpretation is acceptable, regardless of the physical evidence or any referenced source. Another editor backed me last week and reverted AbelM7 to my version. However M7 has reverted once again, so I need to know the view of other editors as to whether it's acceptable to present the alternative interpretation of Europe as a subcontinent with a referenced source by a published author. Please review the recent edit history of the past week or so before weighing in on this issue.

p.s. I'm aware it says just below the main title that the article is about Europe the "continent", but is there any reason it can't be changed to say it's about Europe, "the continent or subcontinent"? Would this be a heresy despite the supporting physical evidence? Why do the terms of reference for the article have to be so narrow and biased? I suppose I could create a new and separate article about the European physical subcontinent, but I think it makes more sense for both interpretations to be in one article since it's the same landmass that's being discussed. User:ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk) 11:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello.Largest cities wrong.Because İstanbul popilation 14,160,467 Moscow popilation is 11,503,501 but Moscow is 1.Pls change.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SharapNeL (talk • contribs) 00:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, considering Europe a continent, I believe is done by human convention, not by a definition of a large continuous land mass which is the continent of Eurasia. Jcardazzi (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi

The word continent is a human convention in any case. It would be weird to list Eurasia as a single continent, as there is no historical use that does that. In the strictest sense following the continuous landmass definition we would left with only 2 continents Eurasiafrica (the Suez channel is a not natural so Asia is continuous with Africa) the combined Americas. The island of Australia could arguably be too small to be a "large continuous land mass". But that would go against common usee of the term continent. Arnoutf (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

All words are a human convention, and I think so is calling Europe a continent a convention. See the wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasia which describes Eurasia as a single continent. I think calling Europe a continent is even more of a human convention, not a geographic continent. Jcardazzi (talk)jcardazzi — Preceding undated comment added 04:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not important what one think, but what the (reliable) sources say. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog. Alex2006 (talk) 08:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Two interesting maps.

Two interesting maps of Europe, from a genetic perspective, that may be interesting to add: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/science/13visual.html http://www.scs.illinois.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.133.236 (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Two important points (1) How would you fit that into the current demographics section which does not mention DNA profiles right now. Or how would you propose to fit it in otherwise.

(2) Can we do anything with this without violating copyrights. If this is not the case we cannot even consider adding the maps. Arnoutf (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Can an external link be added to: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/science/13visual.html. The map is publicly displayed on the NY Times website. Jcardazzi (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi

Westernmost

A fine point: Would the words "the western" be better to write than "the westernmost" in the sentences using the words; for example: "Europe is a continent that comprises the westernmost peninsula of Eurasia". Every dictionary I checked defines westernmost as "the most western", which I think could be considered the Iberian peninsula of Spain and Portugal as the westernmost peninsula of Eurasia. The picture does define the area of Europe.

I read Iberia is described as the westernmost peninsula of the European peninsula. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberian_Peninsula,

I did not find the word westernmost used in the references, though it may be used someplace I did not find. The encyclopedia Britannica uses the word "westward" instead of westernmost: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/195686/Europe Thank you, Jcardazzi (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi

External Links

Can these 2 external links be added for reader for additional reading? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/europe?show=0&t=1422148106 http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/195686/Europe Jcardazzi (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi

I don't see the added value beyond what is in the article. 18:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Greenland should be colored in the map

Considering Denmark, like Russia, is a transcontinental country, with a European part and a North American part.

162.221.121.79 (talk) 02:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Only the parts of Russia and the Kingdom of Denmark in Europe are coloured. Greenland is on the North American continental shelf. Some islands such as Iceland which aren't on either Eurasia or North America's continental shelf are associated with Europe due their geographic proximity to the mainland. Rob984 (talk) 17:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Wrong colour: Armenia isn't "closely associated politically" with Europe

"Armenia announced its decision to join the Eurasian Customs Union in September 2013." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Economic_Union#Membership

Change this please.

88.69.17.228 (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

That confirms the close political associations as most of the Eurasian Economic union are (at least partially) located in Europe. Arnoutf (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

Please keep an eye on the infobox. An editor tried to add a bad, outdated, tertiary source to it to change the rank of Moscow's population and to present it as larger. Khestwol (talk) 06:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
For a related discussion please participate at Talk:List_of_European_cities_by_population#Rfc:_How_to_evaluate_cities_or_countries_which_are_split_between_Asia_and_Europe.3F to help resolve the issue. Khestwol (talk) 06:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Khestwol, your edits could be considered as vandalism. Source is not bad or tertiary. If you think it is too old, please present newer which compare these cities. I will do not have a problem with it, only problem here is your behaviour. This is not how edits on wikipedia should work, please be more polite next time. Thanks. Jirka.h23 (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure the source is actually reliable. It seems a hobby project of an individual. Also the sourcing of the numbers nor the definition is not very clear (and the author acknowledges that definitions are not global). Arnoutf (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The EU has a gender?

Not really a serious question as I assume it is just some poetic license or perhaps a straight typing error, but the line in the paragraph just before the contents menu "The EU was born in the West but she has been expanding eastward since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991." doesn't sound right to me, I know at times a car or ship is called she but is this also the case for multinational political unions?

Also, just a minor type if someone can correct it, again in the section preceding the contents "Europe played a predominant role in global affaires." I assume this should be 'affairs'90.205.101.15 (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Traditionally, Europe was referenced as female, as was Asia and Africa. It may have to do with Europa being female. But it certainly sounds old-fashioned. --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Peninsula???

This article opens with the unsourced sentence that Europe is a peninsula "is a continent that comprises the westernmost peninsula of Eurasia". This strikes me as weird. The definition of penisula being "is a piece of land that is bordered by water on three sides but connected to mainland". First of all that would require us to define Europe itself as not being the mainland (but for some unclear reason Asia being the mainland). In any case if we follow that definition Africa would also be a peninsula (of Asia) as would be Nortern America of Southern America (and vice versa). So this seems a far fetched claim to me.

Without a reliable source that unambiguously claims that this is the mainstream view about Europe, I will change this section within the next few days. Arnoutf (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that the discriminant factor for the editor are the relative areas of Europe and Asia: since Asia is much larger than Europe, this is a peninsula of the Eurasian "supercontinent". Anyway, I agree with you that without a very good mainstream source this is at best OR. Alex2006 (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

For WP:NPOV, "peninsula of Eurasia" can be changed into "part of Eurasia". Because "Europe" is not always equated to mainland Europe. Khestwol (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

That is yet another good reason to change it. The British Isles are definitely part of Europe, but not of the mainland --- they are isles indeed ;-). Thanks for the change. Arnoutf (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. Khestwol (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Cradle of Europe

Instead of adding 10+ references about Ancient Greece being the cradle of European civilization, there should be a concensus, and not ref-bombing. To avoid an edit-war (?) viewpoints should be added here. In the meantime, 3 reliable references are enough for one statement.--Zoupan 21:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I would even state that 3 are more likely to be too many than too few; in my opinion for this statement 1 or 2 references might already suffice. Arnoutf (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the history of the article there had been a slow-motion edit war about the cradle of Western civilisation. An editor kept adding ancient Rome while the academic consensus is that ancient Greece is the CoWC. After the latest addition of Ancient Rome, I reverted and added the references to indicate that the reliable sources agree that Acient Greece is the CoWC. A similar discussion took place on Talk:Cradle of civilisation with the same consensus. As far as the comment there should be a concensus, and not ref-bombing., the consensus is already that ancient Greece is the CoWC; whoever wrote this please do not try to imply that there is some other consensus. As far as ref-bombing it is an unfair characterisation. It took me a long time to find these references and these references contain a lot of useful material that can improve the articles of Ancient Greece, Cradle of civilisation and others. I added these references to stop the edit-war and I was successful. Now that there is no edit-war about this point any more I agree that we can reduce these references to two or three. They should be enough given that similar statements also exist in the articles of Ancient Greece and Cradle of civilisation. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

No criticism on your work intended from my side- but now we are "at peace" again we may want to scale down the weapons of persuasion ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much Arnoutf for your kind clarification. I hope my reply above made it clear that I had no issue at all with your previous comment with which I fully agree. Please feel free to reduce the sources to any number you feel comfortable with, especially given that, as you say, peace has prevailed. :) Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.worldbook.com/wb/Students?content_spotlight/climates/european_climate
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080624190612/http://www.mcpfe.net/system/files/u1/publications/pdf/state_of_europes_forests_2007.pdf to http://www.mcpfe.net/system/files/u1/publications/pdf/state_of_europes_forests_2007.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150722015044/http://www.living-diversity.eu/Introduction.html to http://www.living-diversity.eu/Introduction.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150101022453/http://europa.eu/abc/european_countries/others/georgia/index_en.htm to http://europa.eu/abc/european_countries/others/georgia/index_en.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

First map, listing of largest cities

It's correct that the (Spanish) Canary Islands are not a part of Europe, but Madeira and the Azores are a part of Europe. Also Greenland is a part of Europe. Not becase it's a Danish island, but simply due to the fact that all islands belonges to a continent, and in the case of Greenland, has this island had cultural exchange with mainland Europe for 1000 years. Already the Vikinger had an agricultural settlement in the south, and remains of that era can be found. Iceland isn't far away. What is the alternative continent ? America starts with Ellismere Island and Baffin island, but that's a longer distance , than to Iceland. Also, reg. largest cities - only the Eurpean part of Istanbul's population can be counted. Europe's largest city cannot be even partly located in Asia. I doubt the European part of Istanbul reaches the population of Moscow, London and Paris. Further , there are areas in Germany, Holland and England where cities have grown together. Like Dortmund via Essen to Dusseldorf and other towns and cities. The same can be said about Holland proper and for instance Birmingham - Wolverhampton and several other towns and cities. I'm though surprised to see Rome as larger than Berlin. Berlin is built together with several cites and other areas like Potsdam , Falkensee etc and counts 5,2 mio (I think). But Rome has never had that kind of larger suburbs (I thought)- I'm just surprised of this. It's very difficult to compare sizes of large cities, and listings always depend on the local authorities. (As an example, I know rather well does Denmark has a problem in having 2 out of 5.6 million inhabitants living in its Capital area, so it is splitted into small municipalities and two official regions. Also Frederiksberg, which is totally surrounded by Copenhagen is a municipality of its own (with 100000+ inhabitants). While Sweden some years ago decided to promote Stockholm as "the Capital of Scandinavia". And has since included (but not incorporated) more and more statistical areas, so official figures now indicate Stockholm to be the largest city in Scandinavia. But still most neutral visitors would "feel" Copenhagen to be larger. Especially as a city entirely built together, but also if including suburbs) Boeing720 (talk) 04:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Greenland is part of North America. It is on the North American continental shelf. See this map: File:Elevation.jpg. Continental islands are most definitely associated with their respective continent, not what continent they are culturally associated with. In geological terms, oceanic islands (such as Iceland) are not part of continents, but are associated with continents based on geographic proximity and cultural association. But Greenland is not a oceanic island.

A conurbation can be made of multiple agglomerations. The definition of agglomeration gives each major city it's own urban area, so cities like Dortmund, Essen and Dusseldorf can be compared separately. I think this is the best measure for comparing cities as it distinguishes suburbs from separate distinct cities. A unipolar urban area is more comparable to a single agglomeration within a multipolar conurbation, than the entire conurbation. The only difference is agglomerations within a multipolar conurbations can have overlapping suburbs.

Istanbul is raised often. If we can find a figure for it's European urban area, it could be adjusted. Apparently around 2/3 of the population is in European so the only question is where exactly it goes on this list. Honestly I don't think it's a big deal, the figures aren't even shown. We could even change the list to alphabetical.

Rob984 (talk) 09:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Listing alphabetically would raise a different problem: Why list 9 cities? If you go by size each next city is smaller and it is clear you have to stop somewhere. If you go by alphabet it seems somewhat arbitrary to choose 9 cities and not 10 especially since Athens is only marginally smaller than Rome and would list first on an alphabetised list. Arnoutf (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Milan is the next most populous, and it's not marginal. But 9 or 10 seems fine. 11 would be clearly unnecessary. Rob984 (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I had a look at the data[3]. Two things strike me as relevant here. First of all there are fairly big drops after London (4) and after Berlin (9) and after Manchester (13). That would suggest to limit to 4,9 or 13 cities. Secondly it is striking that all cities in the top are mononuclear cities. This makes this list somewhat problematic in my view, as that implies this measure is a "winner" takes all measure. E.g. Dortmund gets assigned fewer inhabitants from its suburbs (sharing with Essen) than for example Moscow or London. So a large city in close proximity to another large city will almost by definition rank lower than an equally large city far apart from the next big city. While this is one way of describing such data, Wikipedia ranks also tend to bestow prestige to entries ranked high on its lists. I am not sure that we should want that here. (PS since cities are more of a political property and a continent is a geographic entity you could argue that even listing one city would clearly be unnecessary, but if we decide on a number of cities let's use content rather than any arbitrary number to delineate the difference between necessary and clearly unnecessary) Arnoutf (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I actually think choosing an arbitrary number is more appropriate since the field's use should be consistent for all continents. If a city is marginal, so what? There's a link to the list for anyone who wants to find out more. 9 is the last single digit number and 10 is a nice round number, so I think either would be uncontentious. We could use population instead, such as cities over 3 million. That would mean 11 cities. Or only megacities, which would be 4 cities.

That's kind of the point. The economic activity of the populous of those shared suburbs is going to be split between Dortmund and Essen. We are defining the functional size these cities. Is comparing conurbations such as the Ruhr with agglomerations like London any better?

Rob984 (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Cities are the human habitat, not just some political abstract. So they are about as relevant as the human population. Rob984 (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If we use a large to small ordered list an arbitrary cut-off would not be a problem, however if we alphabetize such a selection, the artbitrary cut-off would no longer be an arbitrary cut-off but an arbitrary selection criterion. And that would be problematic.

Why would splitting of the economic activity be the point. You could argue similarly that the social, cultural and economic activity of Essen adds to the relevance of Dortmund (e.g. giving access to many more museums in close proximity. I am not saying either is preferable, only that the choice of a good metric is difficult, if not impossible, and that the current metric seems to favour mononuclear conurbations (while looking at conurbations at large would probably unduly favour densely populated areas). Arnoutf (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Re your later post. I would say we can agree that the built environment is the human habitat. We have been careful so far not to refer to this as city (as that is hopelessly differently defined across countries) To what extent that habitat should be defined as the continuously built environment (ie conurbation possibly with many cores) or a city (where an isolated city would be seen as equally built environment as an equally large city that is part of a ten times as big a conurbation) is less clear. Arnoutf (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Why is it problematic? Like I said, anyone wanting to see a full list can follow the link.

The economic activity is split between the two cities proportionally, and this is a list of cities remember. I don't think there's a significant cultural or social argument for grouping cities like Essen and Dortmund. I suppose it varies from conurbation, but often cities in multinuclear conurbations still have very distinct identities.

There is also the fact that if you include conurbations of multiple cities, why not just use metropolitan areas? The Frankfurt Rhine-Main region is similar to the Ruhr region, although not a continuous urban area. I don't think there is a straightforward answer, but cities/agglomerations are definitely most recognisable.

Rob984 (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The problem with an alphabetized list with an arbitrary number of entries would be that it is not immediately obvious why the listed cities are selected and why that number. In the case of this list we would get Barcelona (not a capital) Berlin (German capital) Istanbul (only partially in Europe), London, Madrid, Milan (no capital) Moscow, Paris, Rome (unless we list St Petersburg as Petersburg), St Peterburg (no capital). I would not get the relevance of this listing (although it would avoid "mine is bigger than yours" type of discussions). Arnoutf (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Kazakhstan

Hello everyone. There is one question, how to add this file: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Emblem_of_Kazakhstan.svg

into this table: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe#Political_geography ? Uvik (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

countries with limited recognition

I still do not understand why there is a map Template:Europe and seas labelled map showing all European sovereign countries and Kosovo, but not other countries with limited recognition in Europe, but at the same time, all thoese countries are shown in the box below, so i would like to ask, which country can be shown on the map. Is Kosovo not a countries with limited recognition at all. I advice, add all countries with limited recognition in Europe to the map. or move Kosovo away, since the situations are same for Abkhazia and ctc. Jiangyu911 (talk) 03:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

If we consider the Caucasus and Cyprus as Asia (as the map does), there are non other countries with limited recognition by at least one UN member in Europe. So what do you mean? Arnoutf (talk) 09:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• • If we consider the Caucasus and Cyprus as Asia, Cyprus, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia should also not be showed on the map. I mean there should be something to tell what can be showed on the map what not. SO, If Cyprus, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia, also Abkhazia and Northern Cyprus, South Ossetia. Or at least say something to mention them. Or, actually my personal intention, just show UN member on the map. Jiangyu911 (talk) 09:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Shame on the double standard of Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

What is the point you are trying to make that is directly relevant to improving the article in your latest post? Arnoutf (talk) 08:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It is only a map. Just because a territory is shown doesn't mean we are endorsing its existence. I think any state that is recognised by at least one UN member state should be shown. Provided it is indicated as a country with limited recognition, what would be the problem? Even if they are only recognised by one UN state, they are still de facto independent territories. We show the Faroes, which are self-governing parts of Denmark. The exception I would make would be the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, the two Donbass republics, and the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, as these are not recognised by any UN states and largely the result of disputes between UN member states. Rob984 (talk) 10:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, and that also means the issue (if any) should be solved at the map article/template, not here. Arnoutf (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Secular populations

At the very bottom of the article it is mentioned that countries like Sweden, France and German have particularly high proportions of non-religious citizen -- the same can be said for Denmark, which, afaik is has a practically entirely non-religious population. A few people are religious but they are by far the minority and mostly consist of immigrants (both christian and muslim). I also noticed that no citations backup any of the claims. Please don't be fooled by the fact that a lot of people are members of "folkekirken" -- it has nothing to do with being religious (most member automatically join because their parents are members and very few ever think about it being possible to leave it).

That is not entirely accurate, look at this 2010 Eurobarometer poll: Eurobarometer 73.1, see page 204 (pdf page 207). As you can see Germany is fairly average. The Nordic countries are all mostly non religious with Sweden the least, then Norway, Denmark in the middle with Iceland and Finland the most. Estland is similar to Sweden. Aside from the Nordic countries, France and the Czech Republic stand out with the highest percentage of atheists in the poll. I highly doubt there are more religious immigrants in Denmark than religious non-immigrants. --84.216.232.204 (talk) 08:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

First let not confuse secular (the belief state and church should be separated) with irreligiosity. Except the Vatican the whole of Europe is secular.

Secondly, and this is more tricky; what does non religious mean? I can come up with at least come up with 5 definitions with hugely differ in number of people (from fewest to most) (1) Those who explicitly state they are Atheist (2) Those who, for whatever reason, where never associated to a church (3) Those who received some rites in childhood(eg baptism) but never were associated with a church thereafter (4) Those who are formally associated with a church, but never act or relate to that church (5) those formally associated with a church but only attend once or twice a year / those not associated with a church but attend a few services a year. So we need to be precise in what we are talking about here. Arnoutf (talk) 10:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

First: You're thinking of secularism, secular is a more general term with many possible interpretations.

Secondly: Good point. In the pdf you can see the questions asked. For example you see that more Danish people "believe there is a God" (28%) than "don't believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force" (24%), whereas about half of the population (47%) "believe there is some sort of spirit or life force". So a majority do not "believe there is a God" but there is still a significant minority, more than one out of four, that do. Although the above mentioned study is interesting I didn't mean to suggest it should be included necessarily (although I don't mean to suggest it should not either), for one thing it only covers the EU countries. But it's an interesting and relevant subject so it wouldn't hurt to flesh out more but it would need more references. 84.216.232.204 (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

recent changes

I reverted the latest changes by Geomant [4] because none are really improvements to the article. Specifically:

• The wording changes to the lede removed important information about transcontinental countries. Not an improvement.
• The maps that were removed contained useful information. The forest pic they were replaced with contains very little useful information (it's just a photo of a forest).
• The addition of the transportation section is a cut-paste job of the lede of Transport in Europe. While a transport section could be useful, this addition contains little useful information ("Transport in Europe provides for the movement needs of over 700 million people..."), and cutting and pasting like that is not good encyclopedia building. Athenean (talk) 07:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120615141437/http://www.britishmuseum.org:80/explore/cultures/europe/ancient_greece.aspx to http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/cultures/europe/ancient_greece.aspx
• Added archive archive.org/web/20061109043743/http://www.historynet.com/magazines/military_history/3031536.html to http://www.historynet.com/magazines/military_history/3031536.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080622043609/http://www.britannica.com:80/eb/article-9106055 to http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9106055
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110520174617/http://www.pr-inside.com/global-wealth-stages-a-strong-comeback-r1942019.htm to http://www.pr-inside.com/global-wealth-stages-a-strong-comeback-r1942019.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080807163707/http://corporate.britannica.com/press/inventions.html to http://corporate.britannica.com/press/inventions.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120621183622/http://www.independent.co.uk:80/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/101-gadgets-that-changed-the-world-398535.html to http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/101-gadgets-that-changed-the-world-398535.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160106041313/http://www.prb.org/Educators/TeachersGuides/HumanPopulation/PopulationGrowth.aspx?p=1 to http://www.prb.org/Educators/TeachersGuides/HumanPopulation/PopulationGrowth.aspx?p=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100107202528/http://esa.un.org/unpp to http://esa.un.org/unpp
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151231235623/http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/taspinar20030301.htm to http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/taspinar20030301.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080609075438/http://www.migrationinformation.org:80/Feature/display.cfm?ID=402 to http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?ID=402

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150722015044/http://www.living-diversity.eu/Introduction.html to http://www.living-diversity.eu/Introduction.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110108003938/http://www.coe.int/aboutCoe/index.asp?l=en&page=47pays1europe to http://www.coe.int/aboutCoe/index.asp?page=47pays1europe&l=en
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101231082215/http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/country-profile/europe/georgia to http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/country-profile/europe/georgia/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130723024001/https://www.ecac-ceac.org//about_ecac/ecac_member_states to https://www.ecac-ceac.org//about_ecac/ecac_member_states
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110424065027/http://www.aer.eu/about-aer/aer-members.html to http://www.aer.eu/about-aer/aer-members.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110108233912/http://www.osce.org:80/who/item/83 to http://www.osce.org/who/item/83
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101207143804/http://www.eucom.mil:80/english/interactiveMap.asp to http://www.eucom.mil/english/interactiveMap.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2016

Europe is not a continent in a geographical sense. It is not even a subcontinent, like India for example, since it sits on the Eurasian plate. This article continuously refers to Europe as "continent" and, even though such use is traditional, it should at least explain that technically and scientifically this is not the case. 96.249.26.201 (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

But what is a continent is a "geographical sense"? India is considered part of Asia despite being on a separate plate, as well as the Arabian peninsula. The Baja California Peninsula is on a separate plate to the rest of North America. North America and South America are considered separate continents despite being connected by land (a canal that goes up and over land definitely does not count). Africa is only separate from Asia because of a man-made channel (also a canal, but at sea level). "Technically and scientifically" there are three huge islands: the Americas, Afro-Eurasia, and Australia. That's about as technical and scientific its going to get. Rob984 (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

But since you seem unable to construct a simple English sentence, (i.e. " That's about as technical and scientific its going to get") how can we possibly believe you? >MinorProphet (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

PS Answer on a Higgs boson, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MinorProphet (talk • contribs) 05:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

PPS Your reply might perhaps contain some justification for the Isle of Sheppey being considered part of Argentina, like las Islas Malvinas. Topograhpical, schmogographical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MinorProphet (talk • contribs)

Right, I replied to your edit request rather than just declining it per "no consensus". Now your being a troll? PS... its called a typo. Rob984 (talk) 10:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Largest cities

The box (top/right) contains a "Largest cities" section. I have tried to understand the logic behind it, but could not really find one :-) So, for example, why is Barcelona (with around 2 million people) is above St. Petersburg (with more than 5)? Or why is Berlin, which is the 2nd largest EU city (almost 4 mio people), in the end of that list, after Paris with just 2 million people? My suggestion would be to put these cities in the right order. Moreover, some cities seem to be missing. Hamburg, for example, is the largest EU city that is not a capital. So, if Barcelona (also not a capital) is in the list, then Hamburg should be, too. And if this is not about cities but urban areas, then Rhine-Ruhr with around 15 mio people should appear somewhere. 90.184.23.200 (talk) 05:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

That is because the city size is defined as Urban Area (as listed on the top of that listing).

The problem with anything else, is that different countries deal with major cities differently. Within a country a city is often equated with municipality. But for example France decided to subdivide Paris into multiple municipalities, leaving the city proper at about 2 Million to Paris as we know it at about 11 Million. The German government decided to keep Berlin one municipality with a city proper about 3.5 Million (and only about 4 million for the urban area). London is even more complicated. London city proper has only about 7000(!) inhabitants, and the UK has decided that Greater London is a special case for which a special legal status was created that is unique within the UK and uncomparable to anything anywhere else.

In short, using municipality numbers, or national definitions of cities makes international comparison useless. That is why we use another measure (urban area here) that does not depend on arbitrary political decisions per country. Arnoutf (talk) 08:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

City selection criteria for infobox inclusion

I think that the criterion of the 9 largest cities is arbitrary and should be modified to better represent the diversity of cities in Europe. I hope some consensus emerges which will better reflect the European city demographics. I think that by using the 3 million population criterion, the inclusion of Milan and Athens enriches the content of the article. Further, I think that Athens, the oldest city of Europe and the cradle of its civilisation, cannot but enrich the mix of available cities. I could also go for the 11 city criterion as in the infoboxes of several other continents. Dr. K. 00:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The reason I added two more was because I felt the cutoff of 3 million was reasonable, being based on the size of a city (3 million resulting in not too many and not too few cities), and also because other articles had 11 cities in the infobox (Africa, North America, South America). But yours are even better arguments. And even better than "9 is the largest single digit number" and "So, you're a Greek...". Athenean (talk) 05:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I oppose your change because I don't see any good reason to change it. I don't actually have a preference for 9 over 11 (11 is just as arbitrary, although more contentious). I do oppose using a population criteria because:

Its still arbitrary because you still have to choose a population cut-off based on how many cities you want. 4 million gives you 7, 3.5 million gives you 9, 3 million gives you 11, 2.5 million gives you 15. So choosing 3 million and therefore 11, is just as arbitrary as choosing 9. Being discriminate doesn't make it any less arbitrary. I mean, I could equally argue 3.5 million is a "reasonable cutoff".

It is inadequate as a consistent definition since it obviously wont give a consistent number of cities for every continent. I think the definition should be consistent per WP:INFOBOX, and both of you seem to infer you agree, despite using many Europe-specific arguments to support 11.

As for being "the oldest city of Europe and the cradle of its civilisation"—this is irrelevant. It states "largest cities" not "most notable". It's also obviously not a consistent definition.

I don't even know what you mean by "enriches the content of the article". Its just a list of the largest cities.

At this point, we are just waiting for a Ukrainian or Portuguese editor to come along and argue "15 is reasonable"!

You have given conflicting arguments. On one hand you want consistency with other articles, but then you justify 11 because it is an "over 3 million cutoff", and that Athens is a notable European city (I don't see editors at Asia accepting that criteria for their article...)? Those two arguments directly contradict each other.

So with that said, I think there really needs to be an appropriate number chosen for all continents articles agreed at the template's talk page. But if you two both think a convoluted criteria is "reasonable", I wont bother.

Athenean, you're Greek and you want to expand the list to include Athens. I was just inferring that you probably have a POV in the issue. Don't take it offensively.

Rob984 (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The previous status quo is not an argument. In fact I don't see any arguments in favor of 9 cities in your above post, only straw men, slippery slopes, and of course ad hominems. What about you Rob, do you have a POV [5]? Oh no, not at all. So please keep your brilliant deductions about my motivations to yourself. Athenean (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

It isn't. I reverted because you don't have a coherent argument for changing it. WP:BRD, you know? The situation now is no better or worst than before. And what is that suppose to mean? Everyone has POVs. But I don't have any view on whether or not a Greek city should be in the infobox, if that is what you are asking. It's funny, you really have no real interest in consistency, do you? Because you know if we had a discussion at the template, the outcome probably wouldn't be 11, since that is such a random number that obviously isn't going to be based on a Europe-specific criteria. Your incoherent argument isn't really holding up too well, is it? Then again, you aren't even denying your POV is the main reason behind the change. Rob984 (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the need to defend myself against trolling. Which, by the way, is a very poor substitute for proper arguments, of which you have none. But whatever, you can keep thinking that. It won't sway anyone though. Athenean (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I am trolling? After years of instability, I added the source for the list with the figure for each city cited, and set the limit to 9. Since then numerous editors have come and added their city because according to some obscure definition it should be included. I have reverted countless times to keep the list accurate. But yes, I am just trolling you.

In seriousness, you are making two entirely separate arguments for your change, both of which I think are flawed. Either it is for consistency, in which case it would need to also apply to Asia and any other currently non-conforming articles; or it is because you think there should be a cut-off of 3 million. You can't have your cake and eat it, so what it is my friend?

And also, who am I not convincing? Right now its two editors who both happen to speak Greek. I don't suppose you would mind if I RFC?

Rob984 (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I also don't know how you can say I have no argument. My argument is your change is arbitrary and not at all improving the article. Your justification is that it is more "reasonable" to cut of a 3 million rather than 2.5 million OR 11 rather than 9 OR that it is more consistent based on a select number of other articles OR that because Athens is culturally significant to Europe it should be included. And you're telling me my argument is a slippery slope? You have simply convoluted a number of weak and irrelevant arguments for your change. Rob984 (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Amidst all this noise, you are missing one simple thing. That Athens and Milan are among Europe's largest cities. No appeals to tradition, slippery slopes, or ad hominems will change that. And as far as I see that's all you got. Athenean (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, RFC it is. I might just ping the regulars on this talk page if you don't mind? Wouldn't want to be accused of canvassing. Rob984 (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Also that is just plain dumb reason. So is Kiev, Lisbon, Manchester. Lisbon is a beautiful place so I think we should extend the list to 15! My preference would probably be 5 in a horizontal list, per MOS:INFOBOX. Hence why a centralised discussion at the template would be ideal. Rob984 (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The only "plain dumb reasons" are your "9 is the largest single digit", appeals to tradition and ad hominems. You make it sound like adding two more cities somehow ruined the article. It is becoming more and more evident you are doing this out of spite. Which is probably why no one reverted to your version. Notice that? Athenean (talk) 01:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

It is suppose to be arbitrary to avoid contention... how is that dumb when the list has been persistently disrupted over the last few years? And yes, partially out of spite, otherwise I would probably just let it be since it is fairly trivial. You could've avoided that by not being impudent. Rob984 (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to ping the regulars, unless you have any reason to object? Rob984 (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

So you are admitting to trolling and being partly motivated by spite. Well, at least you're honest, I'll give you that. Which "regulars" are you speaking of? As far as I can tell the only regulars here are you and me. Athenean (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not really a regular, am I? Maybe the odd edit and vandalism reversion. Looking at the talk page, Arnoutf, Zoupan, Alessandro57, Khestwol and Jirka.h23 look like active editors here. This isn't exactly a complex discussion so I doubt they would mind giving their thoughts. Probably after laughing at how trivial the matter is. Rob984 (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

And being more vigilant towards an editor in spite because they are rude is not trolling. Rob984 (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm don't think that made any sense, its late. I just mean if you are rude, I'm obviously less likely to let it slide or compromise, you know? Its not trolling. Rob984 (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, the problem with rudeness is that it has a tendency to escalate. I admit I was rude because I was really annoyed at your insinuation that I added Milan and Athens solely because I am Greek (that is not the case). So then I responded rudely, and things just went downhill from there. Anyway, I am glad to see you are de-escalating. This is indeed a tempest in a teacup. I was thus wondering if you would be willing to let it slide in the spirit of AGF, and that way we can both move on to more productive endeavors. Athenean (talk) 04:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I accept that comment was disdainful to begin with. Regards, Rob984 (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both for your honesty and open-mindedness. This type of exchange does not happen often, either on-wiki or off. Dr. K. 19:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with User:Rob984. My preference would also be to have only 5 cities in a horizontal list, in all the articles about major regions of the world. The infoboxes must be made consistent. Khestwol (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why individual cities need to be listed in the infobox at all. The problems and nuances associated with defining the size of a city by various measures are best suited for a discussion in the article text, which currently does not mention Europe's largest cities at all (which makes it even more difficult for me to understand why the infobox needs to have this information.) Cobblet (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150128110049/http://www.bloomberg.com/news/world to http://www.bloomberg.com/news/world

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150128110049/http://www.bloomberg.com/news/world to http://www.bloomberg.com/news/world

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Bugs

The capital of the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia isn't Mariehamn but more likely the Episkopi Cantonment. I'm not allowed to edit myself. Someone please update the article. Oxel (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Woops, thank you. Done. Rob984 (talk) 11:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2016

Could a source be provided in the "Etymology" section , third paragraph (see below):

"The term "Europe" is first used for a cultural sphere in the Carolingian Renaissance of the 9th century. From that time, the term designated the sphere of influence of the Western Church, as opposed to both the Eastern Orthodox churches and to the Islamic world. The modern convention, enlarging the area of "Europe" somewhat to the east and the southeast, develops in the 19th century"

The paragraphe does not quote any source and this makes the claim impossible to verify.

Thanks

Alexislefranc (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Done I've added a {{cn}} tag. Stickee (talk) 00:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

A typo and a query

The typo is a link to "broadleaf and mixed" which has been rendered as "broadlef and mixed" in the section on Flora.

The query concerns the section Classical antiquity, "The empire continued to expand under emperors such as Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius...", I would contest that Hadrian should be mentioned as an expansionist, of the two most well know facts about him, one is that he built walls and the other was his consistent refusal to expand frontiers which was a bone of contention between him and the Senate throughout his reign.93.155.218.96 (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

"lef" typo fixed. Query remains open. --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Hadrian removed; he was anti-expansionist. Thanks for pointing these out. --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570768/Europe.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.coe.int/en
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jimmyatkinson.com/papers/versaillestreaty.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/23784
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140906072250/https://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/3-06072010-AP/EN/3-06072010-AP-EN.PDF to http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/3-06072010-AP/EN/3-06072010-AP-EN.PDF
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/data/art/AXTELL01.ART

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Heading map

I propose adding a range of the boundary of Europe, at least on the border with Asia, as not only a single definition is widely accepted. I made this map, which is according to National Geographic . Anybody to suggest other changes on the map (and source)?--QLao (talk) 10:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Changing colour for Malta and marking sicily

Both are on the African plate, (as well as very close to North Africa). See here: https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/GeolColBk/AfricanPlate.HTM http://africa-arabia-plate.weebly.com/ They are associated with Europe for historical and political purposes rather than geographical! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paolorausch (talk • contribs) 04:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Not true at all. Plates do not define continents. Your source says nothing to dispute or question the definition of the continents. Continents are landmass and their adjacent continental shelf, border by oceanic crust. Plates are irrelevant to this definition. Many plates contain both oceanic and continental crust. Iceland is not on a continent. It is grouped with Europe due to geographic proximity to the European mainland (although it's probably closer to North American continental crust). Malta (like all Eurasian and African continental islands) is on the adjoining Afro-Eurasia continental crust, situated closer to mainland Europe. Cyprus is situated closer to mainland Asia. Hence Malta is in Europe and Cyprus is in Asia. Since the continental crust of Eurasia and Africa is adjoined, the border is as arbitrary as the Europe-Asia border, from a geological perspective. Believe it or not, geographers, geologists, environmental scientists, etc, do not define the world's landmasses by cultural and historical factors. Rob984 (talk) 10:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Rob984 is right. If we define continents by tectonic plates we should conclude that India is a separate continent as it is positioned on its own Indian plate and not on the Eurasian plate. Arnoutf (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

According to what source is your map, Rob? If it is according to National Geogrpahic, you should include the river border as well.QLao (talk) 11:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

List of territories

Giving a full list of territories in this article seems excessive, especially seeing we have a well-kept standalone list article at List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe. I would suggest either removing this list, or siginficantly shortening it to a simple "population/area by country" overview. --dab (𒁳) 12:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Etymology

It is possible that the name Europe originated from ancient Proto-Indo-European word cognate with Arya (Sanskrit). One can envisage Airoypa, Aaryapa etc. The word probably carried the meaning 'Land of Aryans'. The Arya survives in Eire, Ariana, Iran, Aryan. Linguists may look into this aspect and do further research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:D06:BBD0:A00E:F182:2A6F:9BD (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

But until they do, and publish it in a reliable source, this is not the place to discuss this. Arnoutf (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

No it is not possible. Also, the Greek etymology of Europe should be discussed at Europe (mythology), it is enough to discuss the name's history as a toponym / geographical concept here. --dab (𒁳) 11:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Let me propose a superior ridiculous nonsensical crankymology I've just pulled out of my ass devised thanks to my genius: Europe is clearly %) the land of Hausos (aka Aurora, Aušra etc.; the resemblance being obvious, especially when we consider Avrupa in Turkish and Avropa in Azerbaijani). Now the dawn may be in the east, like Asia, but that doesn't stop me, because the historical Aryans were also in Asia and not in Europe! :P (Not to mention that from the point of view of AMERICA, Europe is clearly in the east.) Also, aurum is gold in Latin, and the Golden Dawn is a fascist party (there should always be something with nationalist/fascist overtones in this kind of etymologies somewhere, apparently) in Greece, which is in the east of Europe, so everything fits. See, we linguists even beat the lay pseudo-etymologists at their own game!

My current favourite must be using the Lithuanian language, aka "Lithuanian-Sarmatian", to explain Ancient Greek names – why of course, when my native language is notoriously conservative among living Indo-European languages (can you name a more conservative one than Lithuanian? Ha!), that clearly makes me supremely qualified to bullshit around about etymology ... uh, no, dood, even if your native language were Proto-Indo-European itself, that wouldn't automagically make you an authority on historical linguistics and etymology in any random Indo-European language (that you don't even speak, to say nothing of having studied it), in just the same way that Caesar wouldn't inherently be an expert on the Romance language family (were he transported into the present) just by virtue of being a speaker of Latin. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120108153922/http://oren-icn.ru:80/index.php/discussmenu/retrospectiva/685-eagraniza to http://oren-icn.ru/index.php/discussmenu/retrospectiva/685-eagraniza
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111016212930/http://www.i-u.ru:80/biblio/archive/orlenok_fisicheskaja/06.aspx to http://www.i-u.ru/biblio/archive/orlenok_fisicheskaja/06.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151102090226/http://www.oglethorpe.edu/faculty/%7Eb_smith/ou/bs_foundations_chapter9.htm to http://www.oglethorpe.edu/faculty/%7Eb_smith/ou/bs_foundations_chapter9.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://thepropheticyears.com/reasons/The%20rise%20of%20the...oman%20empire.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

HTML

@Rob984 and Unready: I've learned that any void tag <tag></tag> can be abbreviated as <tag/>. If that's not valid HTML, why does it work, why is there no warning displayed anywhere, and why are there no recommendations against this usage anywhere? (At least I haven't encountered any.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

You have learned incorrectly, then. It "works" in wikitext because HTML Tidy attempts to correct broken HTML on the fly. But HTML Tidy is due to be removed from MediaWiki. In addition, headings are already anchors. No additional anchor text is required. --Unready (talk) 03:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Citation needed. See HTML element#Syntax.

Clearly you did not read the page WP:ANCHOR I linked. After the section was renamed, the link in the hatnote on Geography of Europe was broken, which was why I added the additional anchor; the old section title might be linked from other pages too, that's why I didn't simply change the hatnote. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/syntax.html#elements-0 describes the syntax for HTML. WP:ANCHOR says nothing about self-closing being valid syntax for non-void tags. If it did, it would also be in error. --Unready (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

But it counters your assertion "No additional anchor text is required". Sometimes it is sensible to define additional anchors, such as when a section is renamed. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure nothing I've said lacks self-consistency. If you want to keep debating what is or is not valid HTML syntax, it would be better to do it somewhere other than on the talk page for a geography article. --Unready (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I've already conceded the point about HTML syntax. My pointer to WP:ANCHOR had nothing to do with it; it countered your other point. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Unready: And even if you are convinced or have evidence that it is invalid or deprecated, why do you simply repeatedly delete the tag instead of repair it, which would have cost no more than a few keystrokes? That was gratuitously uncooperative and very much not collegial behaviour. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

If that is the only problematic link, why not simply change the hatnote in Geography of Europe??? Adding fairly complex codes should in my view be a last resort as it may result in (potentially misinformed) clean ups of editors who do not know why the invisible code is there. Arnoutf (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Because there could well be more links to the old section title (which I can't find through the "what links here" tool), as I explained above. Renaming sections often leads to broken links and anchors help remedy that. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

First time you mention the "what links here" tool. But I see the point. However, whether renaming sections frequently lead to broken links is not really relevant here. We are talking about 1 single specific section in this article. If you think this problem deserves community attention I would suggest you take it village pump or other policy platforms to make community broad suggestions how to deal with renaming and anchoring section.

If I look at WP:ANCHOR it does not mention broken section links at all (but suggests to use the HTML if multiple sections on the same page have the same section header). If I continue to the relevant section in WP:MOS it appears that they recommend anchor which can actually contain multiple old names (even though it has its limitations); and looks much more user friendly to me. Arnoutf (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The anchor template doesn't allow you to jump directly to the section heading (so that the user can see where they've landed right away), which is why I prefer the HTML solution, which WP:ANCHOR does acknowledge (it actually lists it first) and does not advise against. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

If you place it directly above the section break it does (as good as).

If I read WP:Anchor (which is neither a policy nor a guideline as that page clearly states) there is no mention about broken links, if I read WP:MOS it only mentions the anchor template. So I really see no policy or guideline anywhere that supports your point of view.

The most illuminating point in your text is however the statement "why I prefer" - which seems an argument of the type I just like it, which as well as your rather unspecific reference to Wikipedia essays and howto's are in my view an invalid argument. It seems clear that you are the only editor in favour of putting this lumbersome tag in; and you have so far not presented a policy that clearly, explicitly and unambiguously links your solution to this issue. So perhaps you should just accept there is no support for it. Arnoutf (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no guideline that discourages the use of the HTML solution, in fact it is mentioned in WP:ANCHOR before the template solution, so your argument conversely reduces to an I just don't like it. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I have not used the exact wording "which is why I prefer", if even a self stated synonym for liking cannot be raised as an argument that there is a problem with "I just like it" I do not know what can. On top of that again you based your argument on a fallacy; you are interpreting absence of evidence of discouragement as evidence of absence of any objections against it. The majority opinion to not add the code should be enough discouragement. (I could easily quote the policy WP:burden (being of infinitely higher standing than a howto suggestion like WP:anchor) here that puts the burden of evidence to the editor adding stuff, not those removing it. But that would be making the same mistake as you do with WP:Anchor as neither is unambiguously and explicitly relevant to this case.) Arnoutf (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

You have given no compelling reason at all why you object to the HTML solution (only a vague appeal to editors who may not understand why the code is there, which is hardly compelling), and the MOS provides no clear, explicit guidance either way; I have given a comprehensible reason why I prefer it. There is no "majority opinion" – Unready has objected only to my use of the slash. Please stop engaging in fallacies yourself. If you really care about this so much, bring it up on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style or Help talk:Link and get the MOS or WP:ANCHOR (or both) changed so that editors are not misled. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that here we can agree. To avoid discussions like this, it would be great if WP:MOS would have been a bit more explicit. Arnoutf (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Number of Countries

Just an FYI:

The infobox on the upper right of the main article has 50 sovereign states and 5 with limited recognition listed. The actual linked wikipedia page has 50 sovereign and 6 with limited recognition. Not sure which is the discrepency, but should probably be addressed. 50.129.93.181 (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Malta (as African) - the source just states "Malta located in the African Sea"

Mala is located closer to Italy than to Tunisia or any other African country. I think the used source isn't excluding Malta from Europe (today or earlier in history). I intend to change that part unless a better source can be given. Is Calais English because it's located at the English Channel etc ? Population has also (to my knowledge) always been Christian Boeing720 (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

High populated areas

There is nothing about the high populated areas in europe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C1:8600:C9C3:4D58:B798:EF8F:6574 (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what your meaning with that. Also, border crossing densely populated areas make it unlikely there is consistent data on this. Arnoutf (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the IP-user perhaps would like some kind of map showing areas with low/medium/high population density. I support that idea. Typical is the Netherlands, Belgium, Paris & nort-east of France, German Ruhr-Westfahlen , London in its widest sense and up to Birmingham and the Liverpool-Manchester region areas of very high population density. And there are others as well. While the inland of northern Scandinavia and parts of Finland are next to uninhabited. In general compared to other parts of the World is only the Indian subcontinent and far-east/south-east Asia having a higher population density. Surely we could do something of that idea ! Boeing720 (talk) 01:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

That would be my guess too. But how can we make sure not to overlook regions like the Aachen Maastricht Liege (across 3 countries) Arnoutf (talk) 09:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Prokhorovka was not the largest tank battle

From the article: "The Battle of Kursk, which involved the largest tank battle in history, was the last major German offensive on the Eastern Front" it links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Prokhorovka It is a misconception that the Battle of Provkhoravka was the largest tank battle, as the actual number of German tank in the battle was heavily overestimated by the Soviets. Could somebody correct this? VictordeHollander (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Chechnya and Dagestan

Chechnya and Dagestan are autonomous regions located within Russia. We already have South Ossetia and Abkhazia listed (which are autonomous regions within Georgia).

Also, is it possible to include Circassia?

WikiNutt (talk) 12:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

South Ossetia declared independence back in 1991, has never been re-annexed, and still seeks international recognition. Abkhazia declared independence in 1992, has not been re-annexed, and seeks international recognition. Abkhazia is under Russia's military protection and Georgia has declared the area to be "a Russian-occupied territory". (As a sidenote, Abkhazia performed ethnic cleansing of Georgians in the 1990s and still discriminates against any remaining Georgian minority. The so-called Abkhazian Revolution of 2014 ousted a President just because he granted citizenship rights to ethnic Georgians and gave them a right to hold passports. )

I am not certain what to do with Russia's autonomous regions. Chechnya and Dagestan are considered part of Eastern Europe, but they hold status as federal subjects in the Russian federation.

Why Circassia? The region lost autonomy and political coherence in 1864. Its former areas are currently divided between Krasnodar Krai, Adygea, Karachay-Cherkessia, Kabardino-Balkaria, North Ossetia-Alania, and Stavropol Krai. The traditional Circassian capital, Sochi, is in Krasnodar Krai. Dimadick (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

They aren't self-declared independent states, so why would they be included? Rob984 (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopaedia_761570768/Europe.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://oren-icn.ru/index.php/discussmenu/retrospectiva/685-eagraniza
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.i-u.ru/biblio/archive/orlenok_fisicheskaja/06.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080607055652/http://www.accd.edu/sac/history/keller/Mongols/states3.html to http://www.accd.edu/sac/history/keller/Mongols/states3.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oglethorpe.edu/faculty/~b_smith/ou/bs_foundations_chapter9.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.worldbook.com/wb/Students?content_spotlight%2Fclimates%2Feuropean_climate
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120614152511/http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Unemployment_statistics to http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Unemployment_statistics

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161226095419/http://www.ultimateungulate.com/artiodactyla/bison_bonasus.html to http://www.ultimateungulate.com/artiodactyla/bison_bonasus.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140517172857/http://www.britannica.com-archive-online.eu/EBchecked/topic/93927/capitalism to http://www.britannica.com-archive-online.eu/EBchecked/topic/93927/capitalism
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100509111531/http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/european-leaders-try-to-calm-fears-over-greek-debt-crisis-and-protect-euro/19469674 to http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/european-leaders-try-to-calm-fears-over-greek-debt-crisis-and-protect-euro/19469674
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://jus2.uol.com.br/doutrina/texto.asp?id=2125&p=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706162149/http://www.ppghis.ifcs.ufrj.br/media/manolo_imigracao_lusa.pdf to http://www.ppghis.ifcs.ufrj.br/media/manolo_imigracao_lusa.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2017

remove Prague and Budapest from the largest urban areas there are other cities with a bigger urban areas or ones with a similar population than these two Topschuetze (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done. The list is based on a UN datafile for urban areas. That is a pretty solid source and we should stick with that. (But note that due to differing definitions of urban areas not all listings are necessarily the same). Arnoutf (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140202232625/http://www.gmi.org/index.php/download_file/view/1561/ to http://www.gmi.org/index.php/download_file/view/1561/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Warsaw?

According to Eurostat, the urban population of Warsaw is 3.1 million. It is also the 9th largest capital, yet Warsaw is not listed in the list of largest cities.

Oliszydlowski, 15:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

That list is limited to the EU and does not contain major European cities like Moscow and Istanbul. As definition of city sizes differs between sources and this source omits obviously large cities none of the information can be used here. Arnoutf (talk) 12:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, however it is highly unreliable as Prague is not a large city compared to other European urban areas. This diminishes the article's reliability and validity. I believe that more than one source should be included. The number of cities should also be cut down to 5 at most which would include the most important metropolises of Europe. Oliszydlowski, 23:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source for the largest urban areas in Europe which differs from the current one, we can consider it. But what you actually added is a source for functional urban areas, which is a very different concept and considered one of many measures of metropolitan area.

Definitions of urban area are actually very consistent because they are simply measuring the continuous built-up area. Whether they group urban agglomerations (individual cities) together (as conurbations) or list them separately is the only major variable. Here we use a source which lists agglomerations individually, because its a list of cities by urban area, rather then simply a list of continuous urban areas. Hence why the Rhur area, bigger then Madrid's urban area, is not included (the source splits the Rhur area up between its constituent cities). Though the infobox should probably specify "largest agglomerations" (as oppose to "largest urban areas") for clarity.

Metropolitan area on the other hand has many different definitions because its attempting to measure the economic footprint of a city.

By the way, you are absolutely right, Prague is not the 13th largest city, and is certainly not larger then Warsaw. The cited source actually specifies its population as 1,314,000, not 2,522,136. So someone added it with their own figure. Same for Budapest. The source cited is the same as is used for the second column at List of urban areas in Europe (UN WUP; 2015), so you can refer to that to verify the list here (the actually cited source is a list of all the cities in the world with over 300,000 inhabitants).

In terms of limiting the list to 5, I have suggested this in the past and agree. It use to be 9, then someone increased it to 13 based on their own (incorrect) data. The five listed currently are correct per the source. Only thing I would suggest is that we use a horizontal (or plain vertical) list rather than collapsible one? It doesn't need to be collapsible with only 5 items.

Rob984 (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopaedia_761570768/Europe.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/3096/palaeol.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160120205059/http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Dec02/0%2C4670%2CEUWorldMigrationReport%2C00.html to http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Dec02/0%2C4670%2CEUWorldMigrationReport%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110219144231/http://data.worldbank.org/region/ECA to http://data.worldbank.org/region/ECA

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Catalonia

I think catalonia can be mentioned in the list of de facto independent countries with limited to no international recognition. What do you think guys? http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41780116 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erebus808 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Israel

Since Israel is located in Western Asia and the Middle East, can Israel be considered politically as part of Europe? The Arab and Muslims states won't let them in into several organizations since it participates in UEFA, EBU and vice versa. 2607:FEA8:61F:FFD3:7460:36A2:F0C3:3B0A (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Only if a reliable and mainstream secondary source makes that claim, can we consider this. Arnoutf (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

It is not typically considered a part of Europe, but it has joined a number of European organisations, such as the European Broadcasting Union and CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research). It has also signed a European Union Association Agreement, for non-member states of the Union which maintain "political, trade, social, cultural and security" links to it.

In effect, it has free trade arrangements with the Union, and has (at least nominally) agreed to comply with some of the Union's political standards: "Relations between the Parties, as well as all the provisions of the Agreement itself, shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles, which guides their internal and international policy and constitutes an essential element of this Agreement."

In recent years, a number of European politicians expressed their view that Israel should join the European Union as a full member. Among them Silvio Berlusconi and José María Aznar. Dimadick (talk) 11:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

This proposal is irrelevant for the following reasons (1) This article is about the geographical continent Europe, and Israel is not part of that (2) If we would use the membership of the EU as relevant to assign Europeness of a territory, all domains that are part of the EU should be listed as Europe to avoid bias (WP:NPOV) and that would include French overseas areas with EU voting rights located as far away as the Caribbean and the Pacific. I hope all agree that it would be ridiculous to list pacific islands as part of Europe. Arnoutf (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Israel vs Armenia & Cyprus

I do not understand why Armenia & Cyprus are listed as part of Europe while Israel isn't. Geographically, all three countries are wholly in Asia (Western Asia), but Armenia & Cyprus have been included in Europe for geopolitical reasons. I reckon Israel should be classified as a European country for the same reasons. Otherwise, we should exclude all three of them from Europe.

On the other hand, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Russia and Kazakhstan can all claim to be European countries as they do have part of their territories in Europe, even though some of them, especially Kazakhstan, are generally considered part of Asia. Kenwick (talk) 06:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Armenia and Cyprus share several formal institutions with Europe, share a land-border with an at least partially European country (Armenia) or do not share a land border with an Asian country (Cyprus - bit trivial as it is an island) and even so are not fully counted as Europe on e.g. the map. But even so, while you may argue Cyprus and Armenia are NOT European that does not make Israel Europe. If you provide reliable, mainstream, secondary sources that classify Israel as European we can start a discussion. Before we have such sources we should not. Arnoutf (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Isn't Israel a member of UEFA and FIBA Europe? I really don't understand the criteria used in this article. Kenwick (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Sports associations are hardly major organisation (although its boards generally think differently). You would be looking for membership of political unions and/or geographic proximity and reliable secondary sources that list Israel as Europe. Arnoutf (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Europa and the Bull

The abduction of Europa as imagined by J.F. de Troy in 1716

[[File:The Abduction of Europa, Jean-François de Troy.jpg|thumb|The abduction of [[Europa (mythology)|Europa]] as imagined by [[Jean François de Troy|J.F. de Troy]] in 1716]]

Could someone please add this above the Europa Regina illustration? Thank you. Lesgu2 (talk) 14:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

List of European countries - Kosovo

Kosovo is listed under the header "Within the above-mentioned states are several de facto independent countries with limited to no international recognition. None of them are members of the UN:"

First, it might be better to use: "below-mentioned states there are" if the reference is intended for the list of independent territories, or "besides the above-mentioned states there are also" if we are referring to the first group of countries.

Second, Kosovo is, according to Wikipedia (checked on March 7, 2018), "As of 17 February 2018, the Republic of Kosovo has received 117 diplomatic recognitions as an independent state, of which two have been withdrawn. Notably, 113 out of 193 (58.5%) United Nations (UN) member states, 23 out of 28 (82%) European Union (EU) member states, 25 out of 29 (86%) NATO member states, and 36 out of 57 (63%) Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) member states have recognised Kosovo."

A country with 117 or 113 diplomatic recognitions cannot be labelled as "country with limited to no international recognition". 198.184.231.254 (talk) 11:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Italy, a "birthplace of western civilization"?

I'm sorry but Italy had nowhere near as much influence as Greece had on the Western civilization.

Additionaly, these sources are nowhere near credible:

Italy has been described as a cultural superpower by Arab news, by Global Times, by the Washington Post, by The Australian, by the Italian consul general in San Francisco, by former Foreign Affairs Minister Giulio Terzi and by U.S. President Barack Obama.

Ernio48 (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Largest cities list in infobox

The infobox has a list of the largest cities in Europe, based on the List of urban areas in Europe. The list currently contains the top five, ie Istanbul, Moscow, Paris, London and Madrid. Ufufcguc seems keen to add Berlin (which is 9th or lower, according to source). Other continent article have more, eg Asia ~ 31, Africa ~ 15, North America ~ 10. How many should we have?

Let's pick either a nice round number, eg 10, or a simple threshold, eg 5 million inhabitants. Any comments? Batternut (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe 9 cites with more than 3 million people living in metro area? I want to add more cities, five cities added only its bad... Ufufcguc (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The infobox should "summarize ... key facts that appear in the article" (see WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE), which isn't the case here. I'd propose, if it really is that interesting, adding a longer or more detailed info in the article body (eg as at South America#Populace), and just have the highlights in the infobox. The {{Infobox_continent}} doc says cities parameter should be given "the most notable and highly populated cities on a continent", which is rather ambiguous. I don't read that as implying a long list, 10 at most. Using figures from the recent UN WUP list (2015) there are 11 cities over 3 million. Limiting to 10 would be most stable, least prone to POVy argumentation such as "we must add X because source Y says it is over 3m" etc). The first job though should be to add the basic city info to the article body, eg under Demographics. Batternut (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

So maybe we can add table in demographics section with top 10 largest/most populated cities in europe or make a new section called "cities" and write some information about biggest cites in europe and then add it to the box? Ufufcguc (talk) 01:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Precisely! Batternut (talk) 08:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey with flags next to cities names isnt more colorful? On other continents there is a box with flag-name only, and can you use newest population statistics? And you editied my section "major cities" and only write megacities and other major cities. I wrote about culture visting tourists and standard of living, isnt my version better? And you deleted milan, but is a large metro important city in europe, so i make list one city longer to 11 with milan as important. And last thing isnt title better with name: "Largest cities:" Not "Largest urban areas:"? Ufufcguc (talk) 12:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Re flags, read WP:INFOBOXFLAG. Re cultural cities etc, you need to provide a source, you can't just pick the places you like. Re Milan, well spotted, my error. Re "Largest cities" versus "Largest urban areas", I'm not so bothered, but it better reflects the linked List of urban areas in Europe. Batternut (talk) 10:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

A bit of a perennial discussion. The problem here is that different countries deal differently with the status of their large urban areas. A good example is London. Greater London has a unique status even within the UK and can thus not be compared straightforwardly with other cities. The city of London, which does have a city definition similar to that of e.g. Paris or Berlin, on the other hand has fewer than 10,000 inhabitants; and it would be strange to use that as size of London. In other words, let's stick to urban areas, as these definition are international and hence more comparable across countries. Arnoutf (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2018

84.143.47.206 (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Until the telepathy-toolkit comes online, you have to actually request a change as most editors are not proficient in mind-reading. Kleuske (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Rolandfealty.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Spanish language

Spanish is one of the main and most important languages of Europe. Why is not included as one of the main?

In the Wikipedia of other continents like South America are named more than 5 languages, including even the French that barely has speakers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesOredan (talk • contribs) 22:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Five is enough for me. Also, apparently Polish is #6. Drmies (talk) 23:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• As I explained in my first edit revert comment, "5 better, as same for L1 and L1+L2", ie, the top five languages natively spoken languages are the same as the top five native + secondary languages. So no need to argue about which figure is most important. Batternut (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

It is not true. Spanish has more speakers than Polish in Europe. "https://www.yuqo.com/6-most-spoken-languages-in-europe/"

And Spanish is the second most spoken native language, only surpassed by Mandarin Chinese. And it is the fourth most spoken language in the world in total number of speakers. (L1 + L2)

Excluding Spanish as one of the main European languages seems to me a complete barbarity. Please add Spanish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesOredan (talk • contribs) 10:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

You still have not given me an argument of why only 5 languages.

It is not logical that of 225 European languages you only consider as main 5 languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesOredan (talk • contribs) 11:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

We can list the 5 more spoken languages or the ten more spoken languages but listing the 6 more spoken languages does not make sense (why not 7 or 8 ?). Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Look at the linked table (at Languages of Europe#List of languages) - you can sort by number of L1 or L1+L2 speakers by clicking the column headers. I doubt that your source (yuqo.com) will be considered more authoritative than Ethnologue. And anyway it puts both Spanish and Polish at 8%. This article is about Europe only, so world-wide figures don't apply. It seems as if you are not absorbing my explanation above. I will not repeat it, but suggest you read it again, and also WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Batternut (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, name the first 10, nobody prevents you.

Consider of 255 languages only 5 as main does not make any sense.

And why are speakers from other continents not binding? We are talking about important languages, and Spanish among others are, due to its global nature. That's why it should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesOredan (talk • contribs) 14:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikaviani accepts that 5 or 10 other languages can be added. I'm happy with that. For me, the discussion is solved.

Because the only thing that is wrong is that of 255 languages only 5 are shown as the main ones in Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesOredan (talk • contribs) 14:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Let's see what other people say. But what do you want to count, L1 speakers (where Dutch is 10th), or L1+L2 (where Low German (Low Saxon) is 10th)? PS It's easy to sign your messages with '~~~~'. Batternut (talk) 14:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I think it would be logical to classify them based on L1, because L2 varies a lot, but I really think that both (L1 or L1 + L2) are correct.

The only thing I consider wrong is that only 5 are named as important. 5 European languages of 255 do not represent Europe. JamesOredan (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we should not itemize any of them, just give the link to the List of languages article. That seems to be suggested at {{Infobox continent}}. I'm sure everyone thinks their own language is important. Batternut (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Then do not name any language directly, and simply name the different branches of European languages. Ex: Germanic Languages, Romance Languages, Slavic, etc

The ideal would be to put the 10 most spoken (L1 or L1 + L2), because that would represent a large part of Europe, 5 are very scarce. And historically very relevant European languages are excluded. I really do not think it's negative to add a few more.

I do not think that everyone considers their language as important internationally, but I can assure you that everyone considers Spanish as a very relevant language. Among others. JamesOredan (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

GDP. PPP.

The 2nd table (for GDP) says its in USD, but it’s really “international” dollars. I reckon you need an explanatory sentence just before the table, to explain the difference with Table1; especially for Russia.

MBG02 (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Name

Dear editors, I am writing this in order to enrich the hypothesizes for the "Europe" name etymology. I think that in the "name" paragraph, should be mentioned another possible derivation - the name of the river "Evros".

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maritsa

Citation: Since, when first attested, Europe referred only to Thrace proper,[7] the name of the continent is possibly derived from this river.

In addition of this I would like to mention the history of Evros as a son of Aimos and Rodopi in the Thracian mythology.

Reference: https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%88%CE%B2%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%82_(%CE%98%CF%81%CE%AC%CE%BA%CE%B7)

Citation: Κατά τη μυθολογία, ο Έβρος ήταν γιος του Αίμου και της Ροδόπης και λατρεύτηκε από τους παρέβριους Θράκες ως θεός, όπως μαρτυρεί αναθηματική επιγραφή των αυτοκρατορικών χρόνων....... 5.171.0.29 (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, since there are several hypothesis for the history of the name "Europa" the link right below the NAME title "Further information: Europa (mythology)" should be put after the proper description only of the Greek mythology hypothesis.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Edits need a reliable source using other pages from English Wikipedia or another language of Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 09:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Fernão de Magalhães (Ferdinand Magellan) made the circumnavigation with sebastian elcano

The article as sebastian elcano as circum navigating the world alone when he did it with portugueuse Fernão de Magalhães — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martimafonso (talk • contribs) 07:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Ferdinand Magellan never completed the circumnavigation. He was killed in the Battle of Mactan (1521), which took place in the Philippines. Dimadick (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2018

CHANGE-1: Change the last sentence of the fourth paragraph in the lede

from "Between the 16th and 20th centuries, European powers controlled at various times the Americas, almost all of Africa and Oceania and the majority of Asia."

to "Between the 16th and 20th centuries, European nations colonised and expolited at various times the Americas, almost all of Africa and Oceania and the majority of Asia, often inflicting atrocities, aggressively forced religious conversions, perpetuating slavery, causing mass destruction of cultures, native populations, enslaved economies."

Rationale: Encyclopedia must be UNBIASED. Do not gloss over by piping COLONIALISM to CONTROLLED OTHERS (SUPREMACIST control-freaks bias?). Aslo do not SWEEP UNDER THE CARPET ALL THE MISERY EXPLOITATIVE COLONIALISM BROUGHT. 440 million population of Europe today, India alone is 1.5 billion (a population bigger than all of Europe, Ocenia, middle east and south america put together, India's population is equal to the population of 150 nations out of 200 nations), imagine how badly India was scrwed when its pre0colonial world-number-1 (30% to 70% of global GDP from 1st century till 17th century) GDP dropped to mere 2% of world's GDP at the time of its independence. You have to be on the receiving end for centuries for you to understand it. Least you could do is acknowledge how destructive and horrible european colonialism was for the rest of the world (current lede only has glossy stuff praising europeans).

CHANGE-2: Also add a sentence or two in the lede how Europe inflicted TWO WORLD WARS and the COLD WAR wehre millions of NON-European lives of colonised nations were lost. Worst thing that ever happened to the humanity was the European colonization, second would be islamist wars (in india alone from 10th centure till now more than 100 million hindus/buddhists were killed by islamic jehadi invaders), third worst would be hitler. Hitler is an angel compared to other stuff europeans did. In the world wars 1 million INDIAN SOLDIERS died, 30 million Indian soldiers fought, and colonised India funded colinisers' war through money transferred from Indian coffers and extra taxeslevied on the poor Indians of which millions died in femine while their food was send to the fighting european armies. India is just one nation. All colonial nations did this to other colonised nations. STOP COLONISING WIKIPEDIA, No more intellectual and scholarly colonization by REWRITING HISTORY from the COLONIAL EUROPEAN WHITE SUPREMACIST VIEW POINT.

222.164.212.168 (talk) 11:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC) 222.164.212.168 (talk) 11:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2018

Europe covers about 10,180,000 square kilometres (3,930,000 sq mi), or 2% of the Earth's surface (6.8% of land area). Europe covers about 10,180,000 square kilometers (3,930,000 sq mi), or 2% of the Earth's surface (6.8% of land area). Langevloei (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. A2soup (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Relevant RfD discussion

Please see:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 3#European race

--K.e.coffman (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Arms of Albania.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Arms of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2019

101.165.33.113 (talk) 06:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Euroup is a village

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 06:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Vegetation zone map, not quite correct

This map [6] is most certainly wrong for southern Scandinavia, and I think there may be errors in parts of Germany and Poland too. Compare to this map of Sweden [7] - only the far south and a stripe along the western coast is dominated by broadleaf forests. The areas between that zone and the taiga, is dominated by spruce and fir even though beech can grow a bit more to the north and east, and oak even farther north. The only notable (and quite sharp) boundary between the actual broadleaf zone (where no spruce grow naturally) and the other zones. This can't be seen at the map in this article. I suggest to make a better vegetation zone map. I haven't got a source covering all of Europe. Boeing720 (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Subregional map - an American point of view ?

Also this map [8] , with CIA as source is somewhat doubtful, I think. Isn't Spain and Portugal parts of "Sothern Europe" ? Is Southern Europe Italy and Greece only ? Switzerland Central Europe ? Most of Turkey in purple without explanation ? I find this map to be both political (= as national borders) and CIA-biased. And there is no such sharp regional borders, for instance , France is both "west" and (forom other perspectives) partly "south" , and Germany can be "west". Is Denmark "north" ? My suggestion - removal of this map in this article, it can possibly be used in our CIA article. Boeing720 (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Arms of Montenegro.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Arms of Belarus

The Russian Wikipedia says this is it: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%8F#/media/File:Coat_of_arms_of_Belarus_(official).svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by SgtKowalski (talk • contribs) 03:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia book

I have created Book:Europe. Should a mention of it be added to the "See also" section? Geolodus (talk) 07:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Afro-Eurasia (orthographic projection).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Possible glitch in link

I found what I believe to be a glitch on the article. If you hover over the link of Vatican City in the list of European states, it will show a preview of the article. The name in the preveiw, however are wrong. I'm not sure why, because if you go on the article it is fine. Here is a picture.

Gorman Freedon (talk) 00:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

It's a vandalism that lasted few seconds but got stuck in a cache somewhere. Nemo 07:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Spelling the country's name in the native language by using the correct native alphabet

6. List of states and territories - "Name(s) in official language(s)" column:

In the case of Cyprus, the country's two official languages are Greek and Turkish. While the country's name in Turkish is written in its correct spelling (with the New Turkish alphabet being used), this does not happen in the name's Greek version, as the Greek alphabet is not used at all (consider that in Greek, there is only one alphabet in use, which is the Modern Greek alphabet, so spelling of Greek words in any other kind of alphabet, such as the Latin one, is not correct). For that reason, I'm suggesting a change in the Greek version of Cypsus' name, following the same pattern used in the case of Greece in that list, as beneath:

"Kýpros/Kıbrıs" should change to "Κύπρος (Kýpros)/Kıbrıs"

• When referring to "Cyprus", the only UN-recognised state is meant, which includes the entire island's land and citizens. This official state was created in 1960 with the two above official languages equally applied. This rule is still followed by the legal Cypriot Authority, regardless the Turkish occupation of the island's northern part, the large population exchange between the north and south communities after the war, with the Greek nationals going to the South and Turkish nationals going the North and the de facto self-proclaimed independece of the northern, mostly Turkish national community afterwords, since 1974.

Thanosmed (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Replace photo of bobed Hamburg

With a picture that represents better what happened in WW2. Why does it have to show the damage caused to the agressor. Why not showing the victims? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:19B:214D:B9BF:3EFA:A82E:A5E6 (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Geographic boundaries: better citation needed

Can anyone come up with a better citation than Microsoft Encarta? At Pan-European identity#The boundaries of European identity, we have this sentence:

The geographical definitions of Europe do not seem to be a matter of discussion any more, but the question of a European identity arises concerning countries that are geographically part of Asia as well, such as Russia or Turkey.

where an IP added the 'citation needed'. I expected to find the citation here, only to be very surprised to find that the article about geographic Europe to be poorly cited as to its own scope! --Red King (talk) 10:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Subregion maps

Jirka.h23 reverted an edit by Undashing (which added two subregion maps) with the cryptic comment "no place for that here". Does this mean that it was in the wrong section? (If so, I agree. Putting it after the infobox so that it fills the white space beside the TOC would be more convenient). Or is just wp:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT? (Jirka.h23, if you revert a good faith edit according to WP:BRD, you really ought to open a discussion on it). --Red King (talk) 09:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

My own opinion, FWIW, it that at least one of these maps is worth having (the UN one). Terms like "southern Europe" are widely used so it makes sense for the article to provide a succinct definition. --Red King (talk) 09:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Another official version of Greece's name in Greek

An older version of Greece's official name in Greek, exclusively used in every state's official document till a few decates ago, but still widely spread wothin the country and fully recognised by Greek Authorities and people, is "Ελλάς (Ellás)", insread of "Ελλάδα (Elláda)". This older version of the country's name can be still seen nowadays in old documents and street signs, plus it is still in use in some very special official cases, in which traditional language's versions should be used, such as in military documents and signs.

Thus, I recommend that in column: 6. List of states and territories - "Name(s) in official language(s)", this second version of the country's name to be added aside of the first one. It could be like: "Ελλάδα (Elláda) or Ελλάς (Ellás)".

Thanosmed (talk) 05:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Akrotiri and Dhekelia as Southwest Asia or Europe

As per the disclaimer included in Cyprus: "Cyprus can be considered part of Europe or Southwest Asia", the same should apply for Akrotiri and Dhekelia. These Sovereign Base Areas lie in the island of Cyprus, therefore should be noted with both possibilities (Southwest Asia or Europe). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.27.140.74 (talk) 14:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Fernão de Magalhães (Ferdinand Magellan) made the circumnavigation with sebastian elcano

The articke as sebastian elcano as circum navigating the world alone when he did it with portugueuse Fernão de Magalhães

It's Sebastian Elcano, the capitals, man. Is it articke or article? Fix the grammar. Stalin73$$ (talk) 06:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2020

Add Denmark to the list of transcontinental countries, as it owns Greenland, which is in North America 95.144.230.111 (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Greenland is not part of Denmark proper (Great Britain has as well plenty of overseas dominions, etc.).(KIENGIR (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC))

israel

what about the israeli case? not even a word?

Maybe Asia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.27.140.74 (talk) 14:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Of course it is in Asia. Stalin73$$ (talk) 07:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Is Denmark intercontinental?

I’ve tried adding Denmark onto the intercontinental countries list (definitions section) a couple of times, but both times it got deleted. Should it be included (as it owns Greenland)? ThisIsMyUserName4321 (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

See the answer on the previous section: No.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC))

More specifically, Greenland  – (alongside, not subordinate to) Denmark  – is part of the Kingdom of Denmark. It is not 'owned by Denmark' any more. --Red King (talk) 12:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Chinese Name Change

I deleted the following sentence from this page:

which is an abbreviation of the transliterated name Ōuluóbā zhōu (歐羅巴洲)

I did this because, I have never heard this term though I am a speaker of Chinese. I asked some native Chinese speakers, and they also had never heard this term. I have found any research indicating that the term 欧洲 is an abbreviation of 欧罗巴州, as the deleted sentence suggests, though 欧罗巴 is direct transliteration of the word Europe into Chinese. The word was used on the Chinese Language Wikipedia page refers to 欧罗巴 only as a transliteration for the Greek word "Europa." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agenbite (talk • contribs) 27 January 2012

Disagreement to the above chage

I do not agree with the deletion of the following sentence from this page.

which is an abbreviation of the transliterated name Ōuluóbā zhōu (歐羅巴洲)

Although Ōuluóbā zhōu (歐羅巴洲) is rarely used in Chinese speaking context, the more commonly used term Ōuzhōu (歐洲/欧洲) is unarguably an abbreviation of Ōuluóbā zhōu (歐羅巴洲). By deleting the sentence from this article, English readers will not be able to understand the phonetic connection between Ōuzhōu and Europa.

Moreover, the word zhōu (洲) actually means "continent". So Ōuluóbā zhōu literally means "Europa Continent". To put Ōuzhōu and Europa side by side, is an inaccurate comparison, since zhōu has nothing to do with the pronunciation of Europa.

Therefore, I strongly recommend adding the sentence back to this article, so that the content will make more sense to English readers.

--Cough]] [[zh:user talk:cough|Talk (talk) 08:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Finland's area

Finland's area is 338 424 km^2 not 336 593 km^2. Kaapo-kissa (talk) 10:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2020

My edit request is referring to 1) changing of the text in one sentence and 2) adding one sentence in the text.

Article "Europe", title: 3 History, sub-title 3.1: Prehistory, second paragraph 1a) Please change the year "4500" into "5500" in the following sentence: "Between 4500 and 3000 BC, these central European neolithic cultures developed further to the west and the north, transmitting newly acquired skills in producing copper artifacts". The reason is that the first evidence of extractive metallurgy (smelting) is dating from the 5th and 6th millennia BC, [1] and has been found at archaeological sites in Majdanpek, Jarmovac near Priboj and Pločnik, in present-day Serbia. To date, the earliest evidence of copper smelting is found at the Belovode site near Plocnik.[2] This site produced a copper axe from 5500 BC, belonging to the Vinča culture. [3]

Article "Europe", title: 3 History, sub-title 3.1: Prehistory, second paragraph 1b) In the same sentence, please change "central European" into "south-east European" because the first metallurgy was developed in the Vinča Culture which was located in the south-east Europe and not in central Europe.

Article "Europe", title: 3 History, sub-title 3.1: Prehistory, second paragraph 2) Please add the following sentence in the place right after the sentence that I already mentioned above: "The first evidence of copper metallurgy in the world was found in present-day Serbia, where a coper axe dating from 5500 BC was found, belonging to the Vinča Culture." Feel free to use sources for this sentence mentioned above in the text.

[1] H.I. Haiko, V.S. Biletskyi. First metals discovery and development the sacral component phenomenon. // Theoretical and Practical Solutions of Mineral [2] Resources Mining // A Balkema Book, London, 2015, р. 227-233. Radivojević, Miljana; Rehren, Thilo; Pernicka, Ernst; Šljivar, Dušan; Brauns, Michael; Borić, Dušan (2010). "On the origins of extractive metallurgy: New evidence from Europe". Journal of Archaeological Science. 37 (11): 2775. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2010.06.012. [3] Neolithic Vinca was a metallurgical culture Archived 19 September 2017 at the Wayback Machine Stonepages from news sources November 2007

Please refer to the already existing WIki article about metallurgy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallurgy

Thank you. LovingFacts (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Of the three references provided, the first is not a peer-reviewed or published paper, for the second and third I can only access the abstracts, but in both cases dates of 7.000 ago (so 5000 BCE) are cited. Regarding the other changes to the article please make precise X to Y changes and include the specific references for the Y change. Please reactivate the request once that is done. Thank you. Goldsztajn (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 1000

2001:7D0:4740:1080:16B:69A5:2479:D4AE (talk) 12:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

World Health Organisation

please change ((World Health Organisation)) to ((World Health Organization)) 2601:541:4500:1760:C4A5:F15E:B284:E037 (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done! GoingBatty (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Requesting opinion on a page move request.

Hello,

@ Talk:Aurat (disambiguation)#Requested_move_11_May_2020 is taking place about article relating to women of mainly of Asian origin. In Past 2 days only two opinions are received and more opinions will be preferable. Although topic is more related to women and Asia I am making request here as part of neutrality in making such request. Thanks for your participation in discussion.

Bookku (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

20th Century, Colonisation map figure

There is an issue with this image as it appears now. Belgium in Europe itself is shown in the color for the Netherlands, not the one for Belgium. BSVulturis (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Hilarious. I've edited it. CMD (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

the first map

Why aren't Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia located inside Europe in the first map of the article? Aminabzz (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

That map does not highlight countries, it highlights the usual geographical area. CMD (talk) 03:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Review request: Czech republic's coat of arms

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coat_of_arms_of_the_Czech_Republic.svg) While the lion alone is not incorrect, I think this one is better suiting, since the lion alone is lesser coat of arms. Kr3bm4 (talk) 12:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Should part of Kazakhstan be included in Europe?

The general consensus overall is that Kazakhstan is not in Europe, not remotely. I do understand that the part in Kazakhstan highlighted is in between the Ural river, but it seems incorrect regardless. I found it strange.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.156.222.178 (talk) 01:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

If part of it is west of the Urals, then it's in Europe as generally defined. You are basically saying "I know it's in Europe, but I don't believe it's in Europe". You are making no sense. --Khajidha (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

It is surely meant what I expressed as well, that Kazakhstan is not a European country, but part of her territory is located in Europe.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC))

Which, as I said, is nonsense. ANY country with ANY territory in Europe is, by definition, a European country. --Khajidha (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

No, such definition does not exist.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC))

The definition of Europe is in, of, from, or related to Europe. How can a country that is demonstrably IN Europe not be European? --Khajidha (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I think read the discussion I referred in the Ukraine page, that will present all aspects of the question.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC))

This article devotes reasonable space to definitions of Europe and how countries fall within them, including Kazakhstan. As Khajidha says, the common geographic definition includes part of Kazakhstan. CMD (talk) 13:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Nobody disputed part of her territory is in Europe, but there are more definitons and aspects in spite generally what is a European country.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC))

Could you provide sources for these definitions and their relationship to Kazakhstan? CMD (talk) 02:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

And especially how they are relevant to an article about Europe as a physical location. --Khajidha (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

CMD, Languages of Europe talk page we entirely discussed this, apart from that currently I don't wish to care more with the issue, at the Ukraine's talk page similary we have been informed by another users even sources won't agree on the subject, according to him. Khajida, I just reacted to the topic raised in talk page issue.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC))

Kazakhstan, is a transcontinental country that geographically falls partly within Eastern Europe, with the majority of it clearly in Central Asia. So yes, geographically a part of it is European. But culturally, linguistically, and demographically, it is Central Asian. Kazakhstan has a Kazakh/Asian-majority population with European minorites of Russians, Ukrainians and Germans. It is a Muslim-majority nation too. Other than geography, Kazakhstan does not have any ties with the European continent, and that is why i think it is not European, even though it partly falls under Europe. In fact, no maps of Europe include Kazakhstan, even though it is partly IN Europe, because of its cultural ties to Asia. But yes, since a part of it falls west of the Ural River, it should be included in Europe. Danloud (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

This is WP:OR, and highly circular. CMD (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2020

It is stated that Istanbul is a European city. It is not. Please amend. Mactire2222 (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Istanbul's mention comes with an explanatory footnote. CMD (talk) 01:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

speaking of which, how is footnote 'c' coming before footnote 'b' in the inlet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.139.114.220 (talk) 09:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2020

"the Byzantines and neighbouring Sasanid Persians were severely weakened due the protracted, centuries-lasting and frequent Byzantine–Sasanian wars" → "the Byzantines and neighbouring Sasanid Persians were severely weakened due to the protracted, centuries-lasting and frequent Byzantine–Sasanian wars" 80.3.103.8 (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

•  Done --Sjenger (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Persistent socking

There has been persistent block evasion and socking at this article, and I'm going through trying to remove edits per WP:BE. The Diff program is less than optimal on dealing with things like added or removed paragraph breaks, and makes it look like a massive addition or removal, when it's nothing but a couple of newlines; if anybody knows of a better diff program that can be used here, that might help speed things. Mathglot (talk) 10:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mathglot, is this still going on or can the template be removed? I see that you haven't edited this article for a couple of weeks now. Thanks. Thayts ••• 08:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, I forgot all about it! Sorry; removed now. Thanks for the reminder. Mathglot (talk) 09:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

No problem, thanks! Thayts ••• 09:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Size of Aland

Please review the area of Aland islands in the table of dependencies. It says 13,517 (about as large as Northern Ireland!), which is almost ten fold their actual size of about 1,580 km2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.218.245.96 (talk) 10:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done(KIENGIR (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC))

This article is citing someone criticised as racist and repeating his views as fact

"European culture is the root of Western civilization, which traces its lineage back to ancient Greece and ancient Rome." The third citation for this is Ricardo Duchesne, a person who google tells me has been criticised as a racist and white nationalist and the like, and it seems he's messed around with Wikipedia before too. The above quoted sentence and the one prior to it in the article are pretty suspicious too, especially in the context of citing Duchesne.

Greece and Rome were influential in European culture and history but it's clear the second sentence is holding special value in those two civilisations, just as white nationalists and Duchesne tend to do, and it's using that to pump up the idea of 'western civilisation' that's the foundation of Duchesne's contested views.

As for the first sentence, here it is for context: "European culture has enjoyed a primacy or privilege, often referred to as "Eurocentrism", in the shaping of the modern world-system, through both military conquest and other forms of domination." This is even worse. 'Eurocentrism' is not the "fact" that European culture has dominated the world, it's a worldview focused on Europe or beliefs biased in favour of European civilisations. The sentence, in outright stating that European culture has been dominant in shaping the world, is an example of Eurocentrism, which is part of Duchesne's views.

Killer113 (talk) 12:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

These seem like good points to me. See recent edits and let's continue the conversation here if there is more to be done or discussed. Generalrelative (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)