Talk:Europe

Economy of Europe

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 194.103.205.2 (talk • contribs) 12 January 2011

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

Edit request on 17 October 2012

1) Note mark in table: [s] at Nagorno-Karabakh should be [r] 2) Note mark in table: [r] at Abkhazia and South Ossetia should be [q], perhaps also [m] 3) in remark C: "... However only the population figure includes the entire state" - it seems, that the area figure also (it's bigger than total for Europe, see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia); expression "However only" strange in the place where precise figures only for European part should be the desired status. 4) remark J for Kazakhstan: the same situations as in 3) 5) remark N for Turkey: the same situations as in 3) 6) remark M for Georgia: clear statement that the area and population figures are for the entire territory (not only European part) would be useful 7) "orphaned" remarks A and S. 149.156.20.39 (talk) 08:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done, I think, and ow, my brain... what a horrible system, this cnote. -— Isarra ༆ 18:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Deep ancestry of the Europeans

This genetic map, can be useful to look into the deep ancestry of the Europeans. Maybe it could be of use:

http://www.scs.illinois.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf

Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.203.72 (talk) 03:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Etymology as part of definition?

The recent change in format, which I reverted, was unhelpful. The definition of Europe is a historical matter according to the sources and has very little to do with the etymology. The mixing up of the principal clickable map detailing transcontinental countries rendered the start of the article unreadable. The separation into "definition" and "etymology" seems fine and there seems to be no reason to change it. Mathsci (talk) 07:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Golden Horde and Tatars

Please do not with add unsourced content to the "History" section. An editor has expanded the content related to the Golden Horde without new sources and with far more detail than is appropriate for what is just a summary of the history of Europe. The final paragraph added about Siberia and Alaska concerned the history of Asia and not that of Europe. The history section is quite carefully sourced. To add new material please ensure that it directly concerns the history of Europe, is properly sourced and is concise and in summary form. Mathsci (talk) 07:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Mathsci, I understand why you removed my content I added in Europe, but when you removed the edits I made, you also removed some other changes I made to the article besides that of the Tatars. I also found the article to be biased. I added the part of Almış turning Volga Bulgaria into an Islamic state after his conversion, because I saw there were other random facts scattered across the article, such as the Crimean Tatars collecting Slavic slaves. I found these facts to be biased towards one side of the (hi)story of Europe, and not the other side. It also seems to describe the Tatars as if equating them with Mongols despite the fact that this is an error. The description of Russia expanding into Siberia and Alaska is part of European history and would have a major impact on the development of events in Europe. It is very brief. I will edit it.

If you must edit the article, then do so, but with the considerations in mind based on what I have written above. Perhaps the part of the Golden Horde can be condensed, but with the main points being that the Horde converted to Islam (probably under the influence of the Muslims already in the land of the Horde, such as the Volga Bulgars), and that their territory was mostly Turkic, and not an "occupied Russia" as is erroneously believed since Russia and the Eastern Slavs had not yet occupied these lands before the Mongol conquest except in very small areas. I will get sources on this later (this week hopefully as I know what the sources are). I ask you though, to not remove the whole of the material, but to place an "unsourced" tag if needed. I believe this is important to give a neutral view of European history. --Fernirm (talk) 07:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Please find a source or sources instead of writing the content "from your own head" in a discursive and parenthetic way. I assume that you also edited History of Europe with the ip 67.49.73.135, since identical wording without sources was used in both cases. I helped modify the history section some time ago and every attempt to maintain WP:NPOV was made. Your own edits to both articles seem to skew the content: in both articles you complain about "bias". You have objected to references to countries under Christian rule and have attempted to add undue content about Muslim rule. Please could you stick to reliable sources, preferably books on the history of Europe, and not edit articles to "right great wrongs" as that is POV-pushing? Mathsci (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I have added sources and condensed this history to a very small portion containing the most essential details. Also relating to the history of Europe, I am not out for an agenda, merely to correct popular fallacies, for instance, is it not biased to say that the Spaniards were "pushing Muslims out of Iberia"? This assumes that all the Muslims are invaders and that none of these Muslims are Spaniards, despite the fact that most of the Muslims in Iberia by the year 1100 were local converts. I am not pushing a pro-Muslim agenda as you might suspect, I am trying to give equity to the history of all. I especially found the statement "With the usual pride of advanced thinkers, the Humanists..." to be very biased (it sounds unencyclopedic). Again, you undid my edit without regards to details that I did not come up from my own head as you sat, such as changing "Kipchaks" to "Kipchak-Cuman Confederation", or the conquest of the Siberian Khanate before expansion into the rest of Siberia. Spain did experience a great cultural golden age during al-Andalus, so it seems biased to me to say that Spain had a golden age, this assumes al-Andalus is illegitimate, that's why I added "Christian Spain" so as to remove this bias. Writing that "Christian Europe" instead of "Europeans" makes it clear that not all Europeans were one and the same culture or religion, as was the case at the time of the fall of Constantinople, before it, and after it. I will certainly add sources to this material. And yes, this is righting "great wrongs".  ;) --Fernirm (talk) 08:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content about the expansion of Russia into Asia and beyond. It might be your personal point of view but is not directly related to the history of Europe. Again this is skewing content in a non-neutral and inappropriate way. This content is relevant to the History of Russia, but not here. Mathsci (talk) 08:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Peninsulas in Europe

Regarding this revert, the reason I added the category is because Europe is a Peninsula, and clearly Europe is in Europe. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Cat Peninsulas in Europe? Clearly those peninsulas are in Europe; but Europe, a peninsula or continent or whatever part of Eurasia is, is not in a peninsula... --E4024 (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Europe is quite easily defined as a peninsula, but is an entity inside itself? I wouldn't use that terminology. An odd semantic question indeed. CMD (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Use -if exists- the category "Peninsulas in Eurasia" and we will not have to spend this much energy to understand you. --E4024 (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Fall of "Byzantines" in 1453 after being "fatally weakened"

Last sentence under the heading "Early Middle Ages":

"Fatally weakened by the sack of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade, the Byzantines fell in 1453 when they were conquered by the Ottoman Empire." I find there two problems with this sentence:

1. While Constantinople fell in 1453, other Byzantine cities only fell later, i.e. Trebizond in 1461. It certainly does make sense to associate the fall of the "Byzantine Empire" with the fall of its capital, itself one of the last strongholds to fall to the Ottomans. Please note, that even this is not objective fact, only interpretation, albeit a sensible and widely agreed upon one. But if you are using the fuzzy term "Byzantines", which I interpret along the lines of "Territory, Cities or Population with Byzantine allegiance", then this is not true anymore. Some "Byzantines" still survived a bit longer, even if their empire had already fallen.

2. It is a very bold assertion to make a monocausal connection between the sack of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade, i.e. in 1204, and the final collapse of the empire more than two centuries later! While it was certainly not a very good day for the empire when their capital was captured and their territories divided, only to be restored some 50 years later at a smaller scale, nobody in this world is able to make this bold assertion and support it with scientific evidence. Weakened? Yes, absolutely. Fatally weakened? In other words: irreversibly and exclusively by this event weakened? Who can say!?

Therefore my suggestion to change the sentence above into: "Weakened by the sack of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade, the Byzantine Empire fell with the conquest of Constantinople by the Ottoman Empire in 1453."

Thank you for your time! 79.249.113.191 (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Why do we have to look for a justification 250 years before? Is it so difficult to accept the Ottoman victory, simple because it was superior to the Byzantines? (This is not a queation, I mean remove all reference to the Fourth Crusade.) That is a POV not only against the Ottoman supremacy but also a subjective complaint "you see, you made us lose to those Turks" to some nations... --E4024 (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)