Talk:Europe/Archive 4

message: There are a few problems with the picture "Europe in the native languages" :Image:Europe countries map local lang.png. I don't speak Arabic well, but the following seem to be wrong: the name of Tunisia is spelled backwards, in the name of Jordan, the mandatory l-a ligature is not used, and the name of Syria is spelled sooriya, while I thought it was generally written as-sooriya. Perhaps some could fix this? --141.154.205.61 21:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image clean-up 

message: *Hello, i would like to discuss the meaning of independent state. Why did my entries of Pridnestrovie and Abkhazia get deleted? they is just as independent as any other country. Or is it supposed to be just de jure independent states? if so i suggest an edit is in order. Pure inuyasha 22:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably independent states according to the United Nations. For instance Kurdistan, is not an independent state, but classified as a geographic and cultural region. 85.226.122.222 19:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of independent state. 

message: To avoid misunderstanding, the countries like Armenia, Cyprus, Kazakhstan, etc. must be footnoted in lists in this article. mikka (t) 01:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They are. Only if someone has overwritten the notes would they not be. 212.36.8.100 16:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed European countries 

message: I have to say that I find the edits on articles relating to Asia, Europe, Eurasia and Countries in both Asia and Europe to be lacking in NPOV. They strike me as much more prescriptive, dogmatic and normative than what is reasonable for a contentious or debatable topic like this. These users leave no room for alternative views with phrases such as "unsupportable delineations", "must necessarily", "by some undefined path", "now accepted worldwide", "the experts concur" and "side being ill-defined". And the recent edit displays sources smack in the middle of the text and not placed along with the other sources provided. Also, the namedropping of places like Morocco and New Zealand seems utterly out-of-place and irrelevant to the Caucasus-Urals dividing line. Unless something better is produced, either by DLinth or another user, I will revert to a more acceptable version and we can move on from there. Please discuss! :] //Big Adamsky 19:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes: these repeated WP:POV edits are irksome. E Pluribus Anthony 23:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits by [[User:DLinth|DLinth]], [[User:24.161.41.93]], [[User:4.155.87.40]], [[User:61.59.83.208]], [[User:169.253.4.21]] and [[User:4.155.250.113]]

message: The Greek Island of Rhodes is considered to be European. There's a pretty big chunk(in terms of area) of Anatolia that lies geographically Northwest of it, and thats considered geographically asian
Look at this particular map to see what im talking about
Should this observation be added in ? User:Mrent
:Yes: definitions vary and are already embraced in the article.  While the political status of numerous Aegean Islands is contentious, Rhodes is Greek (geopolitically) and, thus, European.  Rumeli – the segment of Turkey north/west of the Bosporus/Dardanelles – is arguably in Europe, though the remainder (e.g., Asia Minor to some, as per UN subregion) is arguably in Asia; read transcontinental nation.  The former is included in the European table (and the latter/Turkish mainland will be included in an Asian table soon). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not.  Read this and the prior section (above) and the proviso for Turkey in the table: the figures are for the European portion of the country only. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for this note.  Upon double checking the area figures, this is true: as above, the European portion of Turkey – comprised of all of Edirne, Kırklareli, and Tekirdağ provinces and the north/western portions of Çanakkale and İstanbul Province – totals 24 378 km².  I'll update the table/article appropriately. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has anyone ever noticed this ? 

message: User:Codex Sinaiticus, regarding our reveret-revert dispute:
Nakichevan "recognition" of TRNC is interesting fact and encyclopedic, but its place is not here. It is already mentioned on the Nakichevan and TRNC pages. In the "unilateraly cedded territories" list on the Europe page there are entities with "de-facto" control of their territory and no "de-jure" recognition by the other states. Karabakh and TRNC are also recognised by their main supporters (Turkey and Armenia) only. No other INDEPENDENT STATE in the world recognises these entities. Up to here we both agree, right?
Then, Nakichevan - an autonomous region of Azerbaijan (I am NOT disputting this) - adopted INTERNAL Nakichevan Parliament declaration about TRNC. But this does not mount to INTERNATIONAL "Recognition of TRNC by Azerbaijan". Only the CENTRAL AZERI institutions can adopt legaly binding documents in international affairs. So, maybe, after this Nakichevan declaration, the central authorities of Azerbaijan would LATER recognise TRNC. But currently they DO NOT.
199.64.72.252 09:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. —Nightstallion (?) 09:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I also concur.  This is informative, but the article can't be everything to everyone and this isn't the place for it – arguably, perhaps this is more appropriate for the list of countries or similar?  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand your argument.  In fact, as you say, we don't seem to have any argument or dispute at all about these facts.  We both agree this is the case.  The only question is, is it encyclopedic enough to mention here?  If consensus is against it, so be it, I just thought it made a neat footnote.  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nakichevan-TRNC 

message: 1) There is no such a thing called an "autonomous region" in Denmark. There is the "metropolitan Denmark" with administrative divisions named amter and there are also two self-governing territories of Denmark, namely Faroe Islands and Greenland. These are neither amter nor governed directly from Copenhagen but they are parts of the Kingdom of Denmark. 
2) Jan Mayen island has no self-governance and it is not an "autonomous region". It is administratively part of the Norwegian county (fylke) of Nordland. 
3) Svalbard was a "dependency" until 1925, when it was made a part of Norway per se Svalbard Act. The government of Svalbard is not self-governing and represents the central government in Oslo through a governor (sysselmann). However, because Norwegian sovereignty is internationally limited under Svalbard Treaty, the territory may be considered as a dependency. Behemoth 02.02.2006 02:14 (UTC)
Jan Mayen is not in the scope of Svalbard Treaty!!!!
:Thanks for your clarifications; they're helpful!  I don't challenge the treaty distinction.  Regarding sovereignty, however, (for example) the CIA World Fact Book characterises both Svalbard and Jan Mayen as being "dependencies".  Can you cite anything to support your assertion (2) above, or refute the CIA entry?  (Mind you: I don't necessarily disagree with your note above.)  I previously included Jan Mayen since it seems to be 'orphaned' among the list of European territories, but I suppose this is rather analogous to the Shetland Islands, et al. and is already noted in the table.  Thanks!  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faroe Islands, Jan Mayen, Svalbard 

message: Guernsey, Jersey, and the Isle of Man are not under UK sovereignty. They are the possessions of the British Crown. The only UK overseas territory in Europe is Gibraltar. Please don't make any changes in the article if you don't conceive this particular schism! Behemoth 02.02.2006 02:23 (UTC)
:No argument here; thanks again.  I've tweaked and truncated notions regarding these territories (e.g., removal of long-form names), to conform with simpler names for countries above – e.g., United Kingdom, not United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island etc... – and added notes to the table. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  British territories 

message: Wikipedia has include UK as a part of Europe, which is what most people would expect. I have howover noticed most media separate Europe and UK, which leave me scratching my head. See here  Nobody is going to change that, so the best thing is to learn their line of thought. What the heck is the  reason behind separating UK from Europe? WOuldn't that be an important info to include on wikipedia article?
:Well, I personally think that only the UK public and media separate Europe and UK, not the rest of the world. Within the UK, Europe is just meaning the "continent". MikeZ 14:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, having a chuckle at that, although I don't see how one can scoff at a full-English breakfast.  The Germans can talk - not only do they not have milk with their tea, they don't eat eggs before noon, or baked beans.  Of course you are well aware that Britain is filled with a magnificent culture, one that has enabled it to do what Germany never has been able to do: conquer the world. Enzedbrit 08:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK not in Europe 

message: A poll is currently underway to determine the rendition of the island, nation-state, and disambiguation articles/titles for Ireland in Wp.  Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Republic_of_Ireland#Poll:_Ireland_article_titles|Poll: Ireland article titles]] 

message: Why is Ireland included in Germanic Europe? Irish people are Celtic in ancestry, and therefore should not be included in this grouping at all.  Ronline ✉ 10:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maltese people nearly all speak English. Are they part of Germanic Europe? South African people speak English. But are black South Africans part of Germanic Africa? Most Finnish people speak Swedish - which is compulsory in schools, just like English in Ireland - but are they part of Germanic Europe? Ireland's first official language is Irish. So, while English may be widely-spoken, it is not the national language (the Bunreacht lists English second to Irish).  Ronline ✉ 06:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The British speak English, or technically, 'modern English', as do the Irish.  When the Normans invaded Ireland they brought Norman French and eventually came what was 'middle English'.  Modern English has been spoken in Ireland for as long as it has been in Great Britain.  All but a few Irish people speak English and a large minority speak Irish Gaelic as well.  English is the first and most important language in Ireland, and Irish Gaelic is the native language, or rather, the one that came to/evolved in Ireland before English did.  As the Irish speak a Germanic language as a first language, then they are Germanic speaking people.  Ireland is both Germanic Europe and Celtic Europe, as is Britain.  Remember, people might be Germanic or Celtic speaking, but that does not necessarily involve an ethnic categorisation, and Celtic doesn't equate with ethnicity at all, except for in the minds of romantics and the misinformed. Enzedbrit 08:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ireland

message: That is very POV, there is scarcely any connection between Czechs and Russians, or Poles and Russians, and there are deep cultural divisions between countries that were part of Holy Roman Empire in the past and followed Catholicism and those belonging to Eastern Orthodox Church, for example the usage of cyrillic. Also while Russia and in part Ukraine or Belarus perhaps view themselfs as Slavic, the mention of some myth of common "slavic" background is hardly the basis of identity for people of Poland for example.
This entry seems very inaccurate.
--Molobo 08:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read what WP:POV is about. Your logic is inapplicable. Just the same, next thing you see an Ukrainian nationalist who will passionately refuse to be included in the sasme list with Russia. The fact is that the term exists and people use it and don't care about our internal disagreements. And no one uses Cyrillic Europe term; obviously, people don't care of this distinction. mikka (t) 17:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: What we're talking about here is not political links between countries or even culture in the "modern values" sense, but rather heritage. Poland is probably closer to countries like Germany when it comes to values and perspectives on life than, say, Russia. On the other hand, it is ethnically closer to Russia, and that is what the Slavic Europe definition is about. Sure, the whole notion of dividing Europe up into these zones is controversial, just like Huntington's civilisations are controversial. But, Polish people are Slavic, are they not? Russians are also Slavic. Hence, both countries are part of Slavic Europe. It's just like there is quite little in common between England and Iceland in the contemporary world, yet both are part of Germanic Europe. Another example is Moldova and Portugal - they are not only half a continent apart, but are very different in terms of income, way of life, customs, etc. Yet, they are both part of Romance Europe due to their heritage. Thanks,  Ronline ✉ 09:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Slavic Europe?

message: :Ireland refers to both parts of the island.  As both areas are included in Celtic Europe, it seems pointless to name it twice... (Stpaul 17:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ireland vs N. Ireland

message: Some of your arguments are moot. Europe is not a geographical unit, it is a political and conceptual unit. Europe is just a small part of the larger Asia continent and absolutely contiguous with every part of Asia. Remember the Golden Horde, Huns (Attila not Germans), Avars, Tatars and Turkic speakers. There is nothing in the way of geography stopping people from Korea moving slowly west to end up in the North German plain. So stop this, geographical Europe nonsense. Europe is lots of things but cannot be defined geographically. The only reason Turkey is in Asia is that the ancient Greeks called Anatolia and beyond easterly, Asia. At different points in history the whole of the Mediterranean area from Iberia to the Levent to Egypt to Morocco was part of Europe. Think about Roman times. But Germany and further North were not Europe.
I, as a Maltese person, do not appreciate being used as some sort of football for xenophobic purposes. The Maltese have their own language, an odd one to be sure, but it is their own, understandable by other people. The Irish speak English, are not Keltic but just had Keltic speech imposed on them by Keltic speaking invaders, a minority of people. The modern Irish are not much different racially and culturally from the English. The English can claim to be just as Keltic as the Irish or Scots or Welsh genetically considering that no-one really knows what the original Keltic speakers looked like except some highly subjective ideas of some ancient writers.
This talk is just an excuse to vent xenophobic and racist ideas.
** What are you talking about?  Rascism?  Xenophobia?  At least consider correct facts (and spellings).  I think you'll find that the genetic difference is small between most Europeans, given that we've conquored and raped each other for so long.  So it shouldn'tbe surprising that Irish, Scottish and English people have a relationship.  
This section of the article refers to culture.  I don't know what makes you think that Malta is a political football; I don't believe ot came into the discussion of Celtic Europe.  But, nevertheless, consider this.  In Ireland we do speak English; as do you in Malta (are you English).  There are more Irish speakers in Ireland than Maltese speakers in Malta; both languages are official EU languages, albeit small ones.  Yet surely you must recognise the rights pf smaller peoples to recognition in the broader European framework.  We all make up Europe, not just the big countries.
You talk of a Celtic "invasion". In truth there was no invasion, just a migration.  There was, afterwards, something more akin to invasions carried out by the Norse, Gallowglasses, Normans and the English.  It was these actions, in particular the cultural genocide of the English occupation, that obscure the Celticness of the Irish (and Scottish, Welsh, etc.) today.  Are you less Maltese because of the Norman, Sicilian, English, Arabic, Roman,etc., domination of your land in the past?  Or are you less Maltese now that you're in the EU?  (Stpaul 15:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Europe 

message: I think all of this part (including "religious affiliations") should be taken into consideration for deletion or moved entirely to another page. The section is badly edited, includes controversial and/or obsolete claims, has facts that are inaccurate, cites no references, and depends itself solely on the legitimacy of a self-styled so-called European superculture hypothesis, which violates "No original research" policy and is starting to turn, unfortunately, into a farce. Behemoth 21:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  It should not be deleted.  Whose "original research" would it be?  I can't speak for any of the other editors, but I had never even heard of that article hypothesis you linked, so it could not likely have been "based" on that.  The Official religion article has been meticulously researched from a variety of sources, and ultimately by editors who checked the Constitution of each country in the world.  You might not like it, but it's verifiable and hardly Original research.  What claims specifically are you considering to be "obsolete"??  And how could it be "obsolete" and "original" at the same time?? Too many different arguments, sounds like just grasping at straws to come up with any argument that might, work in order to suppress something you maybe find personally distasteful?  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it's a little hasty to claim that linguistic regions are "obsolete" - much as they may not fit in with some people's programmes, they still aren't "obsolete" yet, and not even "obsolescent" yet...  I doubt if you'll get any consensus of editors who want to move the section to a different article, because its relevant here (Europe) as much as anywhere.  And you are still arguing too many different things.  If it were really "original research" as you say, it wouldn't do to move it to another article.  While the new "hypothesis" article you mentioned may or may not be OR, if nobody here ever heard of that article (it appears to be about 2 days old) how can you possibly use that to claim that this section, which has been combed over by numerous different editors, is "Original research"...?? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The section does require significant reform. But IMO it should simply move away from defining "regions" (whether cultural or linguistic or religious) and simply talk plainly about the languages, religions and cultures. Whether there exists a Germanic or a  Catholic "region" is a matter of definition. That there exist areas of German-speaking populations and Slavic language-speaking populations, and of Eastern Orthodox-majority populations etc, that's a matter of plain fact. "Regions" is however an artificial concept, a flawed model of reality rather than reality itself. Aris Katsaris 07:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I approve of what Aris did with the info.  But once again, I disagree / object to the proposal to remove the religions information from this article, as it seems now that was your real objective from the beginning - to get nearly all mention of religion off of this article.  There's nothing wrong with having the detailed religions section on this article, as long as it is accurate; just because a minority (one user?) apparently finds it distasteful, does not mean it is irrelevant to Europe; it's certainly relevant and should be on this page. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Linguistic and cultural regions" 

message: I've made recent edits to clarify information for two transcontinental nations.  Armenia (prior figures for which I misread, so forgive the strabismus!) and Cyprus, though having connxns with Europe and European IGOs, are part of Western Asia geographically (e.g., as per the UN scheme used for the table).  To that end (and to not have entries wih null values in each column and back-and-forth editing), I have removed them from the table and enhanced relevant notes; of course, they'll be included in a table for Asia ... once I create it. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Armenia and Cyprus table entries

message: On the table  is listed as Eastern European and  as Western Europe, whereas the more correct definition today is Central Europe (see :Image:European_Regions_16.png. Shouldn't we change it? West/east is more of a pre-1989 definition, not really relevant in today's politics. +Hexagon1 (talk) 07:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we shouldn't.  As the provisos in the table indicate (and as noted above), geographic subregions are per UN classifications.  Moreover, this neutral scheme has been adopted for other continental tables and content and in absence of any other salient or agreeable scheme.  And the Lloyds IMIU scheme/map, which also notes east/west, isn't it: it is too esoteric and the map dually and ambiguously colours territories in various regions.  Apropos, I'll be making rounds to related articles to reflect the above. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, for god's sake - bloody UN. I still think that using the most commonly accepted way would be preferable, but Wikipedia needs to be standardized, even though the standards may conflict with people's views, and the UN's view is probably the best place to get these standards. It looks like I'll have to take it up with the UN instead. (That'll be fun: "Some guy sues world over some map-thing" :D).  +Hexagon1 (talk) 08:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know ... but therein is the problem: "most common" and "people's views" are arguably subjective.  The current neutral scheme – which is rather devoid of sociopolitical underpinnings inherent in general notions of 'West'/'East' – obviates that.  Perhaps you need ... The Interpreter for added advocacy? :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 09:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'll write to the UN (just for an explanation, I don't have a chance of changing the system they use), but as far as this article goes, I'd say that sticking with the UN is the best way to do it for now. +Hexagon1 (talk) 11:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table 

message: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.117.48.30 (talk • contribs) .
Umm... explain? Pure inuyasha 18:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armenia by no means Orthodox 

message: Given ongoing discussions and recent edit warring, a poll is currently underway to decide the rendition of the lead for the Republic of Macedonia article.  Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Republic of Macedonia#POLL: Introduction for Republic of Macedonia article|POLL: Introduction for Republic of Macedonia article]] 

message: Pending a groundswell of opposition, I've since nixed the redundant list of territories which is essentially duplicated in the table and brought over relevant notions to the latter; I've not detailed the political status of the various territories in the table but might later.  Perhaps the column concerning population density can be retrofitted to succinctly detail political status instead.  Of course, the article (and similar continental/regional articles) can stand for some reorganisation (e.g., re-ordering of sxns) for consistency.  There you go!  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 02:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Table/list

message: hey, there's no central Europe! Well there is, but it is called 'eastern europe' I wanted to change and correct it, but I saw that tag or what is it called, to better first make a comment here, than change things in it. 
Well, politically eastern europe is the former eastern bloc countries, but by geography, it is all what is east of them. (Ukraine, Belarus, West-Russia, Moldova, Azerbaidjan, Armenia, Georgia). By the eyes of the big European powers, everything wich is after Switzerland is usually considered as 'east (or central-east) europe', since the Cold War. See here. So I made some changes. --VinceB 19:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As above, I've restored the prior segregation/arrangement of territories, as per the UN geoscheme (and related notes), a neutral system which has been adopted for all continental tables/subregions and in Wp.  The exclusion of Central Europe, which is actually defined variously as are other regions, is a regrettable circumstance but unavoidable given the above; however, it is included in the regional template at the base of the article.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Central Europe 

message: What on earth is the basis of the regions into which Europe is divided here?  "Southern Europe" including some of the Balkans (but not Romania), plus Spain and Italy?  "Western Europe" including Germany and Austria, but not the UK and Ireland, which are in "Northern Europe"?  This seems wildly idiosyncratic to me. john k 19:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As written here in other topics, the regions are based on the UN definitions . Peter Maas 10:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, what incredibly stupid regions the UN uses.  Iran is part of Southern Asia, and Zimbabwe in East Africa.  Given that these regions do not particularly correspond to commonly understood regional divisions, could we dump them and just have an alphabetical listing? john k 10:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regions 

message: This article seems to be written 80% by Americans or generally not-Europeans. I feel Central-European: where is Central Europe? It doesn't exist. Austria has never been Western Europe and Hungary is not Eastern Europe so is not UK Northern Europe. Canadians I have as friends look on the map and say: this is Slovenia and for me it's east, Lithuania is on the north, etc... If Poland is Eastern Europe why Lithuania is Northern Europe??? Lithuania is more on the East and fast on the same geografical position of Poland. I think also it's not possible to divide Europe so simply: Europe is composed by historical regions and every region has it own history. I live in a city which is part of Italy, but until 1918 was Austria-Hungary: my region is still in Central Europe and not in Southern Europe! I can say the same for a big number of other regions. Then there are political reasons: for me and for Slovaks Slovakia is Central Europe but for Franch people I think it's considered Eastern Europe for two reasons: 1. is considered a part of a former communist state - 2. In France there is a different vision of Europe - as a Western European country France looks the countries on the East as "Eastern".
:this is UN definition Elk Salmon 23:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's considered Eastern and Western Europe has changed. The term Eastern Europe was itself invented by Voltaire in 1731. During the Cold War all communist ruled countries were regarded as Eastern Europe regardless of geography. (DDR was Eastern, while Greese and Finland were Western:-) So definition of East/West must take account of historical context. H@r@ld 20:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Europe for Americans 

message: The English WP states that the ethymology of "Europa" is Greek, while the Greek WP states that it is Sanskrit! 
“The name Europe emanates from Sanskrit word "e'rev", that means west, in order to it distinguishes from the "asoy'" that meant east that is to say Asia.” 
(Babelfish-translation of Greek entry) 
H@r@ld 16:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Evropa: A Greek word?

message: Sorry, but upon further examination and a dose of common sense, it's quite evident that Europe is not separate from Asia. They're the same landmass. Culturally, they're different, but the last time I checked, culture does not a continent make. Why try to stretch and twist definitions to make an exception? Pride, in this case Euro-centrism, is the basic reason. This is really no different than Afro-centrists re-writing history to say that all advances in science, gov't, and culture had their birthplace in Africa only to be stolen by Europeans and the rest of the world. Sell that to somebody else, please, not me.Jlujan69 05:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One of seven continents?? 

message: How was the 710,000,000 figure arrived at?  It needs to be cited, as it seems to include Asian portions of Russia, Turkey, etc. Uris 01:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The figure seems to be derived from the table at Europe#Territories_and_regions and does not include the Asian portions of Russia, Turkey. On the other hand the figures in that tables have not cited sources either. --Donar Reiskoffer 09:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The figures for Russia, Turkey, etc. come from Transcontinental nation#Countries in both Asia and Europe. There the calculation is explained. The source of the data is this: . 212.36.8.100 19:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population of Europe 

message: The history section is rather weird - it starts off with democracy for some reason. No mention of the Neanderthals and stone-age cultures, the Roman Empire is barely mentioned, and the 1000 year period in which the basis of modern Europe were established is treated with a single reference to the age of migrations, likewise the world-wide expansion, and suddenly there's French revolution. Could somebody with a better background knowledge than mine rewrite this into a representative overview of European history? Zocky | picture popups 11:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: I don´t khow if I shoud write in inglesh or in francais. 
The answer is: I and others are europeans. What kind of pressuposition that I make a American music if in my mind I use de keys of the temperated sistem based on the development of a germany musician? And thats cruxis an bibles around?
I search who make that mistake and why. How can I live in that indian territory, conquest of a portuguais searching gold? We search gold today, in the same way.
One thinkness I aproach: The people who live in the eropean territory khow that the money thats its send to the controlers of the economic live in the territory of soult america continent its used to pay comissions of colaborators that stops the increase of conditions of human life in the places thats they live.
I´m shure thats what we, europeans who live in the america, must correct the mistake of ocupation of that territóry. We must go back to europe and try to develop a way that its interrupted for that mistake. It`s not to live out of poorest, but to live in harmony with us. With that kind of thinkness. 
In the america, stay the natives, the indias. They, maybe, use guitars to explain the pain of living. But, maybe, they don`t want to make strings, to rapair. All songs thats sings, leave the indians, using chords, its a music of evangelization. Its the music of the war.
We, the europeans thats live in the america, will put a way to cross the ocean, back to our espiritual home, leave that garden, and contruct new gardens beside the routes. Its the reality of a people, like me, thats leave the childrens in the poor buldings, trys to safe our own skin. And I don´t will pray. We go back now. we go back, here.  [Template:Unsigned]
......what? I cannot understand a word you're saying. Please try to learn English because it seems you only have a weak grasp. Pure inuyasha 00:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  we are european after that mistake of 550 years 

message: Can somebody please explain why Germany is included as a Protestant country?  There are officially 26 million catholics and 26 million protestants in Germany.  The rest are of other religions or non-believers
: And why are the Netherlands and France listed as countries with a high percentage of non-confessional population but Belgium isn't? I'm adding it, 'cause church attendancy is below 10% (some sources even say less than 4%) here and atheism is firmly established. Maraud 00:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religions 

message: There is some confusion about the regional division (if there is such). Sometime ago there was a special section about this - there all these things were mentioned (such as "Slovakia was regarded as East European, but now it is regarded as Central European"). Adding not to virtualy every country in the Territories table is a little too much IMHO. Maybe we should add one little section about these East-Central-West-North things (historical, current, etc.)? Alinor 08:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you ask an average American, I don't think anybody would define Lithuania as "Northern Europe". What is its difference, historical, cultural or geographical, from Poland and Belarus? Baltic States are "Northern Europe" but Republic of Karelia and Pomor lands are not... It's called chauvinistic nonsense, pure and simple. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regions Central-East-West-North 

message: Europe is becomming more like the United States where there are many different ethnic groups and that race is an issue. Race riots are occurring in Europe like the one in France. Millions of black africans and arabs are continuously moving to Europe and they are driving Europeans crazy. Unfortunely, Europe is close to Africa and Europeans can't do anything to stop the waves of immigrants from Africa. 72.140.235.202 04:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Europe can but do not, because immigrants provide cheap labour. LDHan 15:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you understand my point. Many black africans and arabs are moving to Europe, and they will stay and multiply. Native Europeans will be outnumbered, and later Europe will be a "Second Africa". 72.140.235.202 22:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah, but native Europeans won't let that happen dummy, you think they want to be outnumbered in their own nations :-p.  Multiculturalism is already at an end, take for example the recent Dutch elections and their postions on immigration
If you study European history, you'll find that there is a long tradition (going back to the Roman Empire at least) of Africans and people from the Middle East moving to Europe - likewise, many Europeans have moved to Africa and the Middle East (a little thing called 'colonialism'). It's nothing new. While this migrant labour is creating the base of many European economies, I highly doubt that the immigrant populations are going to 'replace' European populations. At any rate, how can you decide who is European and who isn't - what about children of African immigrants who were born in Europe and have only ever lived in Europe? Nonetheless, saying 'they are driving Europeans crazy' is POV and clearly a personal opinion of yours - out of place at Wikipedia. --Hackneytexan 20:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Is this discussion related to a change to the article? General dicussions about the future of Europe don't belong here. Ashmoo 23:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How many blacks and mulattos(half blacks)in total in Europe right now? 69.159.203.22 22:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Who cares about the Turks. There are more blacks than Turks in Europe. It's the Black Peril. 71.145.235.202 05:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multi-racial Europe: White Europe to Brown Europe 

message: Please can somebody explain who considers these countries European for cultural reasons?--Nixer 14:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Council of Europe. --Telex 14:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see. This should be clarified because I think it is not common sense (in my city I suppose most people will not agree Georgia or Armenia are European, not to mention Azerbaijan).--Nixer 15:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I ask which city you come from?--Kober 04:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moscow--Nixer 05:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't take it offensive, but we cannot construct an encyclopedic content based on what people think in a particular city. And I don't think that the removal of the image of the Caucasus mountains can be justified by one's political or ethnic sympathies. Kind regards, --Kober 09:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Georgia and Armenia are Christian, evolved in the orbit of the Byzantine Empire, hence in Europe. Azerbaijan is Muslim, evolved in the orbit of the Haliphate, hence in Asia. It's religion that settles the issue for me. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, Ghirla, but dont you agree that all the Caucasian countries have much in common dispite their differences? It is difficult to distinguish Georgian from Armenian from Azeri man, for me particullary, and it is easy to recognize a person from Caucasus among other foreigners. And the Armenian language for example much more influenced by Persian than by Greek.--Nixer 22:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know what language is spoken in Malta? Are you aware how much Russians have in common with Tatars despite their differences? Absurd! Nixer, I suggest you go post and discuss your theories here: http://forum.skadi.net/--Eupator 16:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If fact I consider Malta a transitional territory. This territory swiched possession to Europe and to Asia many times. Now it developed mixed culture. But stilll there is very strong Italian influence in Malta. Its language no doubt a member of Euriopean linguistic unity, in spite of its origin. Racial distinctions between Maltese and South Europeans small, and it was accepted into the EU because it is a good resort. Russians have very little in common with Tatars except some mixing occured during the Yoke. In fact, it occured, yes. But still it is not dominant in Russian culture. This forum does not accept my e-mail.--Nixer 20:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maltese is mostly Arabic, isn't it?
*** I and most of the Academic community in Europe don't consider them European for any reason in any context, because they are not. They should be proud of their own Asian culture and stop trying to piggy back on Europe--Caligvla 05:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geographically in Asia, considered European for cultural and historical reasons 

message: Why Azerbaijan is included, but Armenia - is not?--Nixer 16:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armenia 

message: "Europe is commonly reckoned as one of the seven continents of Earth." Commonly reckoned? No, it's a continent. Wtf. --Macarion 22:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually there's quite a lot of discussion concerning this. One could also consider Europe and Asia to be one continent: Eurasia; or one of the other 4 models. For more info see continent Maraud 11:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What?

message: :Image:Physical Map of Europe.jpg is somewhat clipped near the Urals.  Is there a better map we could replace it with, or could it be repaired? -- Beland 05:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image cleanup 

message: The footnote says the figeres are for European parts only, while the population figures themself indicate the entire populations of the countries.--Nixer 13:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Figures for Georgia and Azerbaijan 

message: Why is it that this article summary of european influence only mentions the safeguarding of pre-"Dark Ages" (a very problematic term) knowledge and science in Irish monastaries and not a word about our debt to the Arab word in this respect?
:What debt to the Arabs. I believe that we owe them nothing. ***Lindaige
::When you will visit the southern part of the Iberian Peninsula, you will see that Arabs have influenced Europe too! From the 8th to the 15th centuries, parts of the Iberian peninsula were ruled by the Moors (mainly Berber with some Arab) who had crossed over from North Africa. But as far as I know only in that region. The Middle Ages have influenced Europe only way more. Peter Maas\talk 09:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the Arabs...