Talk:History of Europe/Archive 1

message: From the article: "The economy made many people rich, and a few people poorer, although overall the empire grew in wealth."
What is this bullshit? Most people were poor. Someone with sufficient knowledge ought to rewrite this part of the article. cun 00:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Roman economy

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

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

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

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

message: The Renaissance and Reformation section states that by the 15th Century powerful nation states had been formed. This is simply not true.
The idea of Central Europe adopting religious tolerance is also a flawed one, with the reality being much more complex.
--Hahaandy1 15:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Renaissance and Reformation

message: Does Renaissance deserve to be one of the seven eras of European History? We have Prehistoric (a long time ago-appx 700 B.C., Classical Antiquity (appx 700 B.C.-400 AD), Middle Ages (400 AD-1400/1500 AD), Renaissance (1400/1500-1550), Early Modern (1550-1900), and Modern (1900-Present). The Renaissance was about a century according to these highly oversimplified eras.
To divide Europe into seven eras is stupid, but to divide it into those seven is just plain retarded. No other word works. The Renaissance is put as the middle era, as well as by the far the shortest, excluding maybe modern. The entire purpose of that is to prop up the importance of the Renaissance. As a student of history and a hater of the myth of the Rennaisance, I find this to be an uneducated assessment. Europe should be divided into more sections than just a mere Renaissance-favoring seven. Bsd987 18:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Europe divided into eras

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

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

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

message: I was linkd here from History of the world, and I noticed that while that article uses BCE, this one uses BCE. I do not want to start a debate over the system (honestly, I support the BC/AD for reasons not necessary to discuss). I merely wanted to ask if wikipedia has a policy about dating systems, whether for constancy in articles, NPOV, or current academic practice. I don't think it should be changed otherwise, but someone should probably go check about this when next improving the article. I don't want to mess with it myself, but I'm sure someone else does. Garnet avi 13:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not from this article, so I couldn't speak about the standards here, but the general wiki policy is:"Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but should be consistent within an article." There's a general rule as well that editors shouldn't go around making a fuss about the system in any particular article unless there's a good reason for doing so. "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." The relevant link is: Wikipedia:Manual of Style %28dates and numbers%29#Eras. There was a big discussion over at Wikipedia:Eras as to whether this policy should be changed or not, but the whole issue proved inconclusive. There've been similar debates over Commonwealth/American spelling across the Wiki too. The general consensus now is that editors should simply be polite and not engage in lame edit wars over these sorts of things.Geuiwogbil 19:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BC or BCE? 

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