Talk:Europe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineeEurope 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 26, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
March 5, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee
Stock post message.svg To-do list for Europe: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2009-12-17

To get to good article level


Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Verify : ADD inline citations - particularly geography to biology sections and for statistics throughout the article
? edit Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Q1: Are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Cyprus really in Europe?
A: As definitions of Europe vary, this article attempts to follow Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy. That means covering the view that they are in Europe, as well as the view that they are not. The issue has been raised repeatedly here, extensively in 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, and briefly mentioned in many other discussions.

Azerbaijan, Georgia and Kazakhstan are transcontinental countries. But Iceland, Armenia and Cyprus are not in Europe.

Economy of Europe[edit]

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%.[1] 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.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.103.205.2 (talk • contribs) 12 January 2011

References

  1. ^ a b Madisson, Angus (2009). [http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/Historical_Statistics/horizontal-file_09-2008.xls Statistics on World Population, GDP and Per Capita GDP, 1-2006 AD].

The image[edit]

Isn't that Europe image a bit big?

Change native spelling (transliteration) Ukrajina → Ukrayina[edit]

As native, I would like to declare that "Ukrayina" sounds closer to national variation rather than "Ukrajina".

Most common languages[edit]

Turkish language has at least 15 million native speakers in Europe. It is more than the number of Greek speakers. It should be mentioned in the infobox under Most common first languages:.

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2020[edit]

"the Byzantines and neighbouring Sasanid Persians were severely weakened due the protracted, centuries-lasting and frequent Byzantine–Sasanian wars" → "the Byzantines and neighbouring Sasanid Persians were severely weakened due to the protracted, centuries-lasting and frequent Byzantine–Sasanian wars" 80.3.103.8 (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Persistent socking[edit]

There has been persistent block evasion and socking at this article, and I'm going through trying to remove edits per WP:BE. The Diff program is less than optimal on dealing with things like added or removed paragraph breaks, and makes it look like a massive addition or removal, when it's nothing but a couple of newlines; if anybody knows of a better diff program that can be used here, that might help speed things. Mathglot (talk) 10:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mathglot, is this still going on or can the template be removed? I see that you haven't edited this article for a couple of weeks now. Thanks. Thayts ••• 08:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh my goodness, I forgot all about it! Sorry; removed now. Thanks for the reminder. Mathglot (talk) 09:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
No problem, thanks! Thayts ••• 09:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Coat of Arms of Austria[edit]

I would expect Austria's coat of arms to be the eagle, as shown on Austria's page. Any reason why the list of states uses a different one? --Bfx0 (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bfx0, what you see in the table appears to be a "lesser coat of arms". This is not only the case for Austria, but for many other countries in that table. Thayts ••• 08:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you and sorry for the late response. Is there a rule when lesser coats have to be used? Shouldn't they be replaced with the "supreme" coat? (I'd be willing to do it, but I feel there may be a good reason not to.) --Bfx0 (talk) 11:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Size of Aland[edit]

Please review the area of Aland islands in the table of dependencies. It says 13,517 (about as large as Northern Ireland!), which is almost ten fold their actual size of about 1,580 km2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.218.245.96 (talk) 10:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done(KIENGIR (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC))

This article is citing someone criticised as racist and repeating his views as fact[edit]

"European culture is the root of Western civilization, which traces its lineage back to ancient Greece and ancient Rome." The third citation for this is Ricardo Duchesne, a person who google tells me has been criticised as a racist and white nationalist and the like, and it seems he's messed around with Wikipedia before too. The above quoted sentence and the one prior to it in the article are pretty suspicious too, especially in the context of citing Duchesne.

Greece and Rome were influential in European culture and history but it's clear the second sentence is holding special value in those two civilisations, just as white nationalists and Duchesne tend to do, and it's using that to pump up the idea of 'western civilisation' that's the foundation of Duchesne's contested views.

As for the first sentence, here it is for context: "European culture has enjoyed a primacy or privilege, often referred to as "Eurocentrism", in the shaping of the modern world-system, through both military conquest and other forms of domination." This is even worse. 'Eurocentrism' is not the "fact" that European culture has dominated the world, it's a worldview focused on Europe or beliefs biased in favour of European civilisations. The sentence, in outright stating that European culture has been dominant in shaping the world, is an example of Eurocentrism, which is part of Duchesne's views.

Killer113 (talk) 12:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

These seem like good points to me. See recent edits and let's continue the conversation here if there is more to be done or discussed. Generalrelative (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

A very minor content dispute[edit]

Khirurg (talk · contribs) and I have both been editing in the third paragraph of the lead today and have a difference of opinion as to how best to word its first sentence. This user favors the wording: The earliest advanced civilizations in Europe sprang up in ancient Greece and Italy (most notably in Rome), and as a result these societies are the foundation of Western civilization. For a number of reasons I believe that my initial wording of the sentence is better: The earliest city-states in Europe sprang up in ancient Greece and Italy (most notably in Rome), and in this sense these societies form the foundation of Western civilization. This user's edit summary when initially changing my version to theirs read minor reword; not just city-states (e.g. Macedonia, Etruscans, etc. This reasoning did not seem to me logical to me, nor did the edit in any way improve readability or sense, so I reverted, stating in my summary: Not an improvement: circular. Also, ancient Italy is inclusive of Etruscan civilization. Khirurg then reverted my revert stating not an improvement" is not an argument. I again reverted stating Please observe WP:BRD; when you are reverted the proper next step is to open a Talk page section. This is a very minor content dispute so please do not escalate. And please respond to my whole edit summary, not just the part you find it easiest to dispute. Khirurg then reverted once again, stating WP:BRD applies to you, and don't lecture me about "the proper next step is to open a Talk page section" and "do not escalate". If you revert again I will report you for a 3RR violation. There is nothing "circular" about my edit. In order to avoid escalating the matter further and falling into edit war territory, I ask that we continue the conversation here. Any additional input on the matter from other editors would be quite helpful. Generalrelative (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

And to clarify, the circularity I pointed out is in stating in effect: X and Y are the earliest civilizations in Europe and "as a result" they are the foundation of European civilization. My version of the statement, on the other hand, focused on defining the sense of civilization we are using (i.e. "earliest city-states", "in this sense") when we properly identify Greece and Rome as foundational. Generalrelative (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
"in this sense" is problematic because it implies that in some other sense in which they are not the foundational cultures of Europe, which is nonsense. "in this sense" is thus an example of WP:WEASEL. If "as a result" bothers you, we can also just replace it with a semicolon, e.g. ";they are the foundational cultures". As for "city states", I also find that problematic, because ancient Greece (in particular) but also Roman civilizarion were not confined to city states. For example, the kingdom of ancient Macedonia (ancient kingdom) was a particularly significant component of ancient Greek civilization, but was definitely not a city-state. Khirurg (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for engaging, Khirurg. Here we get into a matter of actual disagreement because of course Greece and Rome are not the foundational cultures of Europe. Other European cultures have their own roots. That's clear as day. The word "civilization" has several senses, and only in the special sense of "city building society" do Greece and Rome qualify as foundational. Further, WP:WEASEL refers to words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated. My version, however, makes the sentence more specific by focusing in on the specific sense of "civilization" used there. Those are my substantive arguments, though I suspect we'll need a third opinion to settle this. Anyone else care to weigh in here? Generalrelative (talk) 03:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, the article doesn't say they are "the foundational cultures of Europe". The article says they are the "earliest advanced civilizations in Europe" (true), and the foundational cultures of Western civilization (also true). Khirurg (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
To be clear, the foundational cultures of Europe was verbatim from your previous comment. And no, it is not straightforwardly true that Greece and Rome were the earliest advanced civilizations in Europe because "advanced" is not an objective judgment. Weren't the builders of Stonehenge in their own way "advanced"? Where you draw the line and what criteria you count as "advanced" has an irreducible degree of arbitrariness to it, and thus the term is not encyclopedic. The statement that these societies are the foundational cultures of Western civilization is even more arbitrary if we understand "civilization" in its broader sense as "culture". Aspects of other cultures certainly contributed to Western civilization so why single out those of Greece and Rome as "foundational"? Again, there is no objective rationale here. That's why it's so important that we be clear that we're speaking of civilization in its narrower sense as "city-building societies" if we're going to speak of Greece and Rome as foundational to Western civilization.
Since it may be just you and I arguing this out here at present, let's agree to work from the sources, yeah? I've provided a reliable one which is our current footnote 10. Let's base our discussion on what can be found there (and note that it does focus on "city-states" as the foundation for the "rise of the state", despite how problematic you may find that focus; they're the reliable source, not us). If you have another RS to add, I'd be happy to discuss that too. But as it stands, the source supports my wording over yours, both stylistically and substantively. Generalrelative (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Are you sure you want to continue this? Because I can come up with a gazillion sources that Greece and Rome are the foundations of Western civilization, as well as the earliest advanced civilizations in Europe. Khirurg (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I am quite skeptical that such sources would represent current scholarship. So if you'd like, feel free to bring them up here. I'm open to being persuaded. And certainly a neutral third party could show up and decide this as well. For now though, my edit will stand. As the one whose version of the sentence was created more recently I believe the WP:ONUS is on you to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Generalrelative (talk) 01:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Come to think of it, there's really no reason to retain any reference to "Western civilization" here at all. That reference was just a relic from a previous version of the paragraph (where it was sourced to a children's textbook). It's not mentioned explicitly in the current citation at all. Maybe this solves our dispute? Generalrelative (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • A lot of readers follow this page, so having a dispute between two editors for a major article is not a great idea. Changing Ancient Rome to History of Italy does not seem to be helpful: the recent history involved Il Risorgimento, so 1871, not the Roman Empire. City states are discussed in Ancient Greece, but surely they are not the same as Provinces in the far-flung Roman Empire. A long, long while back (2007?) I helped another editor rewrite the History section of this article which at that stage only used a National Geographic book. That has changed. But surely the correct approach is to write the body of the article and then summarise the lead? Some parts of the lead were very recently removed with consensus and those removals seemed appropriate. But when the single sentence on Ancient Rome became modified, problems seem to have arisen. Mathsci (talk) 02:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Mathsci (talk · contribs): It's good to hear your perspective, and I definitely agree that a content dispute between two editors on a major page like this is not optimal (which is why I posted neutral invites here[[1]] and here[[2]]). However in restoring the previous version you've replaced a well sourced statement with one sourced to two inadequate citations: the first is incomplete ("Lewis & Wigen 1997, p. 226" – nowhere is the title of the book given) and the second is a children's textbook which is definitely not WP:RS. The source that I added, however, on early city-states in Greece and Italy being foundational to state-formation in Europe was a 2016 secondary source from an academic publisher authored by four respected historians. How about restoring that source and then working from there? Generalrelative (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Note too that History of Western civilization handles this topic without falling into the kind of naive reductionism that is so problematic in the sentence under dispute here. It states: The civilizations of Classical Greece and Ancient Rome are considered seminal periods in Western history. I'd be fine with swapping out "Western history" for "European history" and making that the first sentence of paragraph 3. Thoughts? Generalrelative (talk) 03:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
(EC after long delay) From the Encyclopedia Britannica: "Rome, which began its republican history as a city-state, pursued policies of foreign expansion and government centralization that led to the annihilation of the city-state as a political form in the ancient world." The statements about Ancient Greece and its 31 city-states are fine. The statements about Ancient Rome are contradicted on EB and elsewhere. Mathsci (talk) 04:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I think the sentence, "The civilisations of Classical Greece and Ancient Rome are considered seminal periods in Western history" is a fair compromise. As an uncontroversial statement in the lead, I do not think it requires a source. Mathsci (talk) 04:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Great, thanks for your engagement and your help resolving this dispute. Generalrelative (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I actually think this version is much better [3]. More informative. Merely saying that they were "a seminal period" is vague and uninformative. Khirurg (talk) 05:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Note that the rubric on this article talk page says that British spelling is required; cf Lord Clark's Civilisation (TV series). The sentence in question has been unstable for a long period, as can be checked on the article history. Mathsci (talk) 05:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. The original edit where Ancient Greece was added to the lead was by me on 29 May 2009:[4] "Europe, in particular Ancient Greece, is often considered to be the birthplace of Western culture." The phrasing (plus the ref from Lewis & Wigen) had to be used at that stage because of edit-warring by the disruptive sockpuppet User:TheThankful. Mathsci (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the perspective, Mathsci (talk · contribs), and again for your thoughtful engagement. Despite you and I agreeing on compromise language, and despite your pointing out to Khirurg (talk · contribs) that their edit summary referring to the current version as long-standing was false, I've now been accused of edit warring by Dr.K. (talk · contribs) for restoring that compromise language. For my part, I find the charge spurious, given that I've followed WP:BRD throughout, seeking a third opinion to resolve the dispute as recommended in WP:CON –– and indeed, found one. However at this point I will leave it to others to finish the job of fixing this sentence if they choose. Life is simply too short to allow minor content disputes to devolve into acrimony. Generalrelative (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
According to the Delphic oracle, μηδὲν ἄγαν—nothing in excess. Mathsci (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Non-Roman/Greek Influence in Western Civilisation[edit]

"European culture is the root of Western civilization, which traces its lineage back to ancient Greece and ancient Rome."

This sentence, which begins the third paragraph, places emphasis on Greece and Rome as the most ancient and/or prominent forces that created western civilisation. While they certainly had a major impact on future European civilisations, other equally-old cultures would also have big cultural and linguistic impacts in the European cultures and civilisations that would rise after the classical period and the fall of Rome.

Western civilisation, as defined by Wikipedia, is not just 'the stuff that came from Rome and Greece', but all Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_culture

"Western culture, sometimes equated with Western civilization, Occidental culture, the Western world, Western society, and European civilization, is the heritage of social norms, ethical values, traditional customs, belief systems, political systems, artifacts and technologies that originated in or are associated with Europe."

One big example I can think of are the Germanic peoples that moved into Roman territories in the Migration Period. While they did adopt and emulate a lot of Roman stuff, the form civilisations would take in Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire would be unrecognisable if you removed the linguistic and cultural influences of the Germanic peoples.

Furthermore, there is more to Europe than the bits Rome and Greece played around in. The further north and east you go, the less influence they had culturally and linguistically. The Romans never conquered Scandinavia, with Scandinavian cultures having their own roots, but Scandinavia is absolutely part of Europe and so part of western civilisation. While you could go "Ah, but western civilisation, specifically the civilisation bit, is about cities", that's not what western civilisation is defined as in the Western Culture page of Wikipedia, which is what 'Western civilization' in the top-most quoted sentence links to. Western civilisation, as defined by the page that the quote links to, is about a whole massive bunch of cultural European stuff, not specifically and exclusively cities. Killer113 (talk) 01:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Hitler image changes[edit]

rev 985854141
rev 986432543

Nick.mon recently removed one image of Hitler in Finland ini 1942, in favor of another of Hitler and Mussolini standing together in this edit, and then followed with this one. Sources were removed at the same time, so I reverted. But, the caption in the Finland image was very clunky, and deserved to be fixed up. Plus, although Nick.mon didn't give a justification for the image swap, so we don't know their their intent or how it's supposed to improve the article, I can see an argument that the second image is better. Should we keep the first one and just fix up the clunky caption? Go with the second one? Or a completely new image? Or neither? What do others think? Mathglot (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mathglot! Yeah, my bad... anyway I thought that this image was better, because it represented the two main Axis leaders, so I thought it would be more appropriate for that section, than an image of Hitler with the Finnish PM and President. Anyway, this is only my opinion. -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
@Nick.mon: no, you're fine; was just hoping to hear from you, so thanks for that. I think your argument is a good one, and based on that I would support your change to the image on the right. Let's see what others have to say. (Don't forget the use of edit summary, though, especially in articles, as they can help avoid situations like this, and your change might've sailed through. Less important, perhaps, on Talk pages, but even then, it can help other users find generally how a conversation is going, especially if it turns out to be a very long one.) Face-wink.svg Mathglot (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Europe&oldid=988148922"