Talk:Eurasia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
.gif/75px-Rotating_earth_(large).gif) |
This article is supported by the Geography WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage on Geography and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Geography, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Vague subdivision
Anthropologically, historically, and linguistically, Eurasia is more appropriately, though vaguely, subdivided into West Eurasia (often including North Africa) and East Eurasia, and they are further subdivided into regions like Europe, East Asia, South Asia, Central Asia, and Southwest Asia, which have distinct cultural, religious, historic, and linguistic differences. Alternatively, some historians perceive much of South Europe, South Asia, and West Asia as historically closer to each other than to their northern counterparts, creating a vague South Eurasia. North Europe and parts of North Asia create another vaguely similar cultural and geographic sphere known as North Eurasia.
Does this paragraph say anything at all? It looks like pure handwaving to me. Terms like "South Eurasia" have little or no currency. --JWB 19:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
It looks like a waste of space to me, especialy the 'north Eurasia' vs 'south eurasia' bit. Though i can see its been extended further since i trimmed it down ages ago. I think it can be removed, as it adds nothing. I personaly thing Norway is very similar to Japan (they both like Fish), should we add that?
[edit] I added eurasian celebrities when they said "people of mixed races"
hope you guys don't mind that i added them. I feel it is important to list eurasian people in there. (Kyla 03:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC))
It belongs in the Eurasian (mixed ancestry) (used to describe people) section IMHO (it seems to be absent there), not here, this is just about the continent/landmass. And why no Ben Kingsley? He rules! I'd suggest moving it to there, and deleting it from here.
[edit] Utter interrogative?? (Say what??)
This sentence is a mystery to me, it needs clarification or Wiki linking:
In the game universe of the Earth series (Earth 2140,2150,2160), one of the major factions was the Eurasian Dynasty.
惑乱 分からん 19:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV tag
I know there isn't always a discussion on the talk page, but in this case there should be. Does this article have neutrality problems? Why or why not? --BDD 17:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Fixed now. But the 2nd half of the article needs to be moved out - perhaps to Eurasia (fiction) or whatever the appropriate wikinaming format is. Nurg 08:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Article is poorely written
"Europeans, unaware of the extent of Eurasia, traditionally considered Europe and Asia..."
You don't have to consider it's two continents because they are. You make it sound like Europeans are ignorant idiots who use propaganda to make the rest believe Europe itself is a continent.
Article is misleading and interprets usage of word Euroasia in a wrong way.
Definition of island is that it's a land surrounded from all sides by water, but that doesn't apply to a continent. You're mixing apples and oranges here.
- Then what is Eurasia, then? mike4ty4 01:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- The separation of Eurasia into Europe and Asia is due to historical convention going back to the ancient Greece. The ancients were ignorant idiots. Referring Europe as a continent just isn't scientific. It create all sort of inconsistency. Europe isn't even distinct landmass given that there is no definite geographical end of Eastern Europe. It is valid distinction as a cultural/economic and political entity and that is why region is more fitting. It is fine as long as the separation of Europe and Asia is attributed to historical convention while the idea of Eurasia is attributed to academia. Vapour
Vapour: this is such nonsense! 1) "ancients were ignorant idiots" : did you realize that all science, philoposhy and civil civilisation we are living in is pretty much based on what these people found out about life and living on this planet! 2) why is is you try so hard to press "continent" into a geographical box? As a matter of fact Europe and Asia are two continents it has been like that for 3000 years and you, your uncomprehensive logic and your missing NPOV is not going to change that! "traditional continents" is just as wrong as calling a continent a "concept"! If wikipedia allows such nonsense on here it isnt really worth being called an encyclopedia. 65.11.208.97 01:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Eurasia is a continent
There is no controversy regarding whether eurasia is or isn't a (super)continent. This is separate from whether 6 or 7 continent is more politically correct. Describing eurasia or australia as a landmass is not sufficiently descriptive. Controversy is over whether europe/asia is landmass or continent. Vapour
When Eurasia is an entity belonging to categorical type called "continent".[1] Super continent reference is needed when one argue that Europe and Asia is separate. Landmass cover even a tiny island and not sufficiently accurate. Vapour
- I'll direct you to the succinct definition for Eurasia in the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary: "landmass of Asia & Europe -- chiefly used to refer to the two continents as one continent." I think distinctions are not so much a matter of political correctness but of appropriate usage. The prevalent notion of Europe and Asia as discrete continents dates back to classical antiquity, while their unity and reckoning as a single continent is preferred by physical geographers and those in Russia (which spans both Europe and Asia) who, like anyone else, can easily see on a map that they comprise one landmass. :) Corticopia 14:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- for the record, there are other countries that span continents. Depending on how you define the continent, Panama could be considered in both north and south America. Egypt's Sinai is generally considered part of asia. Turkey is definitely part of Eurasia, But Istanbul (not Constantinople) spans the Bosporus, and is considered in Europe and Asia. See, as far as the greeks were concerned, there was this body across the agean they called Asia (Minor), and this body across the mediterranean they called Africa. Sure, there's a way around on land to asia minor from greece, but do we know that they knew the way around? Similarly, there's a way around from Spain to Morocco besides swimming across the gibraltar, How were the ancient greek supposed to know? I'm fairly sure the term Asia predates the ability to walk to asia on dry ground (less bridges across the dardenelles or the bosporus). I guess the question I'd ask, is what do you think the term continent meant to the Greek? McKay 15:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- POV that Europe is a continent is widely held by people whose cultural tradition can be traced to ancient Greek, never mind that Greek did not know the extent of Ural Mountains which doesn't extent to Eastern Europe to give clear boundary between Asia and Europe. Still, as long as this POV are properly attributed, that is fine. However, there is no dispute as to Eurasia being either continent or super continent. The fact of the matter is that landmass is not sufficiently accurate. It is already established that Eurasia can be defined as continent and supercontinent but not an island. Landmass is a categorical class which include three type of categorical identity. Use of landmass is not technically incorrect, however, it is less accurate than (super)continent. Calling human an ape, for example, is technically correct yet misleading and inaccurate. I'm fine with either "continent (or super-continent depending on the definition)" or "(super)continent". To be honest, calling Eurasia a landmass favour Europe=continent POV while calling Eurasia a continent "only" favour Europe><continent POV. That is why I have an issue with this inaccuracy. Vapour
- Just as some consider the term "continent" POV (because it's really a supercontinent), others would consider the term "supercontinent" pov (because it's really a continent. We can't use one or the other in description. Also, we do describe the controversy later, so we are providing as accurate a representation as is possible without POV. Your ideas of presenting both simultaneously could work, but those two you suggested seem a little clunky. McKay 16:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well, we can definitely use 'continent' and or 'landmass' in the intro (as is currently the case): the definition above (and others) clearly indicates that Eurasia may refer to the single continent or both combined, and a number of other sources do indicate Eurasia as a continent. Corticopia 16:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- The fact of the matter is that there is no Eurasia-continent-or-not dispute in geographical or geological community. Eurasia is "at least" a continent and more accurately a super continent. Therefore it is not correct to present the status of Eurasia as disputed as in the case of Europe/Asia. And I really have to stress again that I'm not arguing for "Eurasia is a continent" edit, which subtly imply that Europe=continent POV is incorrect. However, just as Eurasia=continent would be a POV spin, to censor a reference to undisputed continental status of Eurasia is a spin into the opposite direction. Vapour
- Well, we can definitely use 'continent' and or 'landmass' in the intro (as is currently the case): the definition above (and others) clearly indicates that Eurasia may refer to the single continent or both combined, and a number of other sources do indicate Eurasia as a continent. Corticopia 16:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Just as some consider the term "continent" POV (because it's really a supercontinent), others would consider the term "supercontinent" pov (because it's really a continent. We can't use one or the other in description. Also, we do describe the controversy later, so we are providing as accurate a representation as is possible without POV. Your ideas of presenting both simultaneously could work, but those two you suggested seem a little clunky. McKay 16:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- POV that Europe is a continent is widely held by people whose cultural tradition can be traced to ancient Greek, never mind that Greek did not know the extent of Ural Mountains which doesn't extent to Eastern Europe to give clear boundary between Asia and Europe. Still, as long as this POV are properly attributed, that is fine. However, there is no dispute as to Eurasia being either continent or super continent. The fact of the matter is that landmass is not sufficiently accurate. It is already established that Eurasia can be defined as continent and supercontinent but not an island. Landmass is a categorical class which include three type of categorical identity. Use of landmass is not technically incorrect, however, it is less accurate than (super)continent. Calling human an ape, for example, is technically correct yet misleading and inaccurate. I'm fine with either "continent (or super-continent depending on the definition)" or "(super)continent". To be honest, calling Eurasia a landmass favour Europe=continent POV while calling Eurasia a continent "only" favour Europe><continent POV. That is why I have an issue with this inaccuracy. Vapour
- for the record, there are other countries that span continents. Depending on how you define the continent, Panama could be considered in both north and south America. Egypt's Sinai is generally considered part of asia. Turkey is definitely part of Eurasia, But Istanbul (not Constantinople) spans the Bosporus, and is considered in Europe and Asia. See, as far as the greeks were concerned, there was this body across the agean they called Asia (Minor), and this body across the mediterranean they called Africa. Sure, there's a way around on land to asia minor from greece, but do we know that they knew the way around? Similarly, there's a way around from Spain to Morocco besides swimming across the gibraltar, How were the ancient greek supposed to know? I'm fairly sure the term Asia predates the ability to walk to asia on dry ground (less bridges across the dardenelles or the bosporus). I guess the question I'd ask, is what do you think the term continent meant to the Greek? McKay 15:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
This discussion shouldn t really deal with the questions who s POV is a POV as POV are not subject to a required definition in this article. Since there ARE common understandings of what continents are, grouping two of them into one entity should (the most of logic applied) make up something else; means supercontinent for this entity seems to be the more appropriate term (which then by self definition of the word also means that a supercontinent is a coninent... but thats a different discussion).
In regards to the old, hereis a map by Herodotus which is surely not the oldest map available. Egyptians and more so Phoenicians and Greeks knew very well about the Caucasus and India, and it is documented that the Carthaginians did send an expedition along the African coast which did circumnavigate the entire African continent. Ancient Greek tradespeople saw the three known "continents" foremost as sections of coasts and the term continent was defined only by the Romans as the according ladmasses behind those coasts.
- ah, do your realised that we are in dispute mainly because there are no "common understanding of what continents are" in regard to Europe and Asia. As of Greek or Egyptian, they didn't seem to have clue as to the geographical/geological make up of what lay beyond Caucasus. Moreover, it is highly doubtful if ancient Greek or Egyptian knew much about what is contemporary known as Northern Europe as part of Europe. Christiandom which encompass north, south, east and western "europe" emerged much later. Vapour
So do we agree that we should at least say Eurasia is either continent or super continent? I will wait for a while Vapour 16:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Contradiction
This article says that Eurasia is a landmass (specifically, the largest one in the world), while Africa-Eurasia and List of islands both say that it's part of the landmass Africa-Eurasia. I for one can't really see why we would let the Suez Canal separate landmasses, when the Panama Canal, for example, is not allowed to do that. -- Jao 15:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- It's probably because said canals transect these great landmasses at their narrowest points (isthmuses) Actually, I do believe the Panama Canal -- also, roughly the Panama/Colombia border -- may be variably used to separate North and South America. Corticopia 17:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- the panama canal seperates north and south america.
- Of course, but there is no confusion at the Americas, North America and South America articles about the fact that NA and SA, while most often considered separate continents (just as Europe, Asia and Africa are), are still merely parts of the landmass called America, The Americas, or The New World. Nowhere in those articles is the proposition that NA and SA would be two different landmasses even suggested. So why should Eurasia and Africa be? And if they for some reason should be, then the intro of Africa-Eurasia, as well as the List of islands, should be changed. Either Eurasia is undisputedly the world's largest landmass, or Africa-Eurasia is undisputedly the world's largest landmass, or there is a dispute. They can't both undisputedly be the world's largest landmass, and that's what Wikipedia tells its readers as things stand now. -- Jao 21:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Note: the list of islands has been moved to List of islands by area, and Africa-Eurasia and America have both been split there. Also, Africa-Eurasia seems to have left the "world's largest landmass" wording behind. While I'm not particularly fond of how this was resolved, at least the contradictions have come to an end, so I will hold my tongue on this issue. -- Jao 10:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Of course, but there is no confusion at the Americas, North America and South America articles about the fact that NA and SA, while most often considered separate continents (just as Europe, Asia and Africa are), are still merely parts of the landmass called America, The Americas, or The New World. Nowhere in those articles is the proposition that NA and SA would be two different landmasses even suggested. So why should Eurasia and Africa be? And if they for some reason should be, then the intro of Africa-Eurasia, as well as the List of islands, should be changed. Either Eurasia is undisputedly the world's largest landmass, or Africa-Eurasia is undisputedly the world's largest landmass, or there is a dispute. They can't both undisputedly be the world's largest landmass, and that's what Wikipedia tells its readers as things stand now. -- Jao 21:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Only 10.6% ???
Water inclueded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.33.203.27 (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Insert non-formatted text here
