Talk:History of Europe
Can we move up the links to the territories to the top so that they can be found more easily??
Upper and lower middle ages? Those are odd terms. The only place I've seen height applied to time is in geological eras, and then lower would be older. Is this a standard of some sort?
- No. If there is any kind of standard, it would be much more along the lines of Early Middle Ages, High Middle Ages, and Late Middle Ages (or possibly just Early/Late or Early/High, etc.). The Middle Ages article says the same in a paragraph about periodization. For now, I changed the headings to "Early ..." and "Later ..." from what they were. --Mrwojo 23:56 Oct 5, 2002 (UTC)
So, uh, I'm not clear on why minutiae of the "Spartan Cosmos" are critical to the general summary of European history. Shouldn't those be in a Sparta article?? Stan Shebs 23:18 Feb 10, 2003 (UTC)
The Communist-conspiracy screed that an anonymous user put in place of a brief, sober account of World War II last February presents interesting problems to a newbie. On the one hand, we are encouraged by Wikipedia policies to be bold in editing, and unafraid to replace stuff. On the other hand, NPOV requires us not to just replace another guy's version with our own version.
I have pursued the NPOV approach to an almost satirical extent, by leaving much of the stuff in, and then presenting an alternate point of view. I do not regard this as a great success: it makes the section a little incoherent and disproportionately long. Comments from those with more experience in dealing with anonymous one-shot propagandists would be welcome. Ought I just to have reverted (manually) that part of the text, and to Hell with it? -- Dandrake 06:25 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Apologies for those naive changes. The Estonian revisionist version (at least that's where the one-shot anonymous propagandist has an IP address) is gone. Anyone who wants it can recover the archived version and put it on a World War II The Suppressed True Story page.
Dandrake 16:51 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Can we move up the links to the territories to the top so that they can be found more easily??
Upper and lower middle ages? Those are odd terms. The only place I've seen height applied to time is in geological eras, and then lower would be older. Is this a standard of some sort?
- No. If there is any kind of standard, it would be much more along the lines of Early Middle Ages, High Middle Ages, and Late Middle Ages (or possibly just Early/Late or Early/High, etc.). The Middle Ages article says the same in a paragraph about periodization. For now, I changed the headings to "Early ..." and "Later ..." from what they were. --Mrwojo 23:56 Oct 5, 2002 (UTC)
So, uh, I'm not clear on why minutiae of the "Spartan Cosmos" are critical to the general summary of European history. Shouldn't those be in a Sparta article?? Stan Shebs 23:18 Feb 10, 2003 (UTC)
The Communist-conspiracy screed that an anonymous user put in place of a brief, sober account of World War II last February presents interesting problems to a newbie. On the one hand, we are encouraged by Wikipedia policies to be bold in editing, and unafraid to replace stuff. On the other hand, NPOV requires us not to just replace another guy's version with our own version.
I have pursued the NPOV approach to an almost satirical extent, by leaving much of the stuff in, and then presenting an alternate point of view. I do not regard this as a great success: it makes the section a little incoherent and disproportionately long. Comments from those with more experience in dealing with anonymous one-shot propagandists would be welcome. Ought I just to have reverted (manually) that part of the text, and to Hell with it? -- Dandrake 06:25 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Apologies for those naive changes. The Estonian revisionist version (at least that's where the one-shot anonymous propagandist has an IP address) is gone. Anyone who wants it can recover the archived version and put it on a World War II The Suppressed True Story page.
Dandrake 16:51 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
History of Europe series?
Would anyone be interested in creating a series of articles on the History of Europe to replace this page? john 17:03, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
That would be better, a short paragraph to cover hundreds of years isn't enough, each era needs its own page at the very least. Grunners 00:22, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
I totally agree, what I am really missing is an overview of the many kingdoms that existed in the past, but don't exist anymore. There should still be short paragraphs, forming a summary of the period, with a link to a more elaborate page. Also some little maps with the area. This page should have a link to every Germanic tribe or other european people that existed (ofcourse this may be a little much, so maybe a link to a page with this list). I am willing to work on this page, but I don't know much about early european history, besides the roman and greek history and the minoans in the beginning and a general knowledge untill 1450, so I miss good knowledge to make something about the many kingdoms that existed, but there are some pages already on hte site, for instance Bernicia. Oh well, who is willing to work on it? However we should be carefull not to make identical pages to already existing pages. Roman Empire has more specific information about the roman empire, but around that we can still add a lot. User:Magraggae 00:09, 19 Jul 2004 (GMT+1)