This subject is featured in the Outline of Europe, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, is part of Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia.
Europe was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I think this would be in the economy section: Europe has a long history as the world's richest and most productive part of the world. At the time of Christ's birth is estimated western European output per capita was approximately 30% higher than the world average. Year 1500 had this advantage increased to 40%. After the development of science and the Industrial Revolution in Europe grew its lead quickly, in 1700 produced an average European almost 70% more than world's average population, and in 1850 was taken over the entire 150%. Around the year 1900 was Western Europe's leading role as the world's most productive area has been taken over by the former European colony of the United States, but Europe has continued to belong to the world's richest, most productive and knowledge-producing regions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs) 12 January 2011
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
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).
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?
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.
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)
Essen-Dusseldorf is not a city, they are two standalone cities, Dusseldorf and Essen 126.96.36.199 (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)
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)
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)
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 orplagiarize 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)