![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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)
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jao ( talk • contribs) 18:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Water inclueded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.33.203.27 ( talk) 14:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WebHamster ( talk • contribs) 07:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Currently a number of different styles of maps are used for continents (and for the poles), for example:
I'd like to try and standardise maps across the following articles: Americas, North America, South America, Africa, Afro-Eurasia, Asia, Australasia, Eurasia, Europe and Oceania (and also, ideally, Arctic and Antarctica. My preference is for the orthographic projection currently used at Europe because:
Assuming there's consensus for this, I'll post a request at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop (unless, of course, anyone volunteers beforehand!) However, before doing that I do want to check that there is consensus for this at each article affected. Additionally, I'm posting this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography to increase the exposure - I'd rather find out if this is a stupid idea before I start requesting new images ;-)
Personally I think it would be good if the Arctic and Antarctic maps were consistent with the continent maps. I realise that the poles may have different requirements, however.
This proposal is quite a radical proposal, affecting many articles, and deals with areas I don't normally edit in. I'm therefore prepared to be slapped down if I'm stepping on toes!
Cheers, This flag once was red propaganda deeds 10:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
The lead current reads:
Jared Diamond, in his book Guns, Germs and Steel, credits Eurasia's dominance in world history to the east-west extent of Eurasia and its climate zones, and the availability of Eurasian animals and plants suitable for domestication. He includes North Africa in his definition of Eurasia.
The climate zones? South America had a great civilization, canals seen from satellites even today, that allowed them to feed a massive population. Plus they had corn and potatoes. Different nations were dominant at different times in history, for a variety of reasons, it not just having a good food supply. They also had superior plants in South America for stronger material for ropes, sails, and bowstrings. So as far as plants are concerned, South America had an advantage over Eurasia. Some nations rose to power at different times, do to a variety of reasons. Any reason to quote this one author? He doesn't even use the same definition of Eurasia as the article does, including North Africa, but apparently not the rest of Africa. Also, North America, specifically the USA of course, has totally dominated the entire world in recent times, with the largest economy and strongest military. It has fertile soil for an ample food supply, and ample mineral wealth, so that people could've just as easily built a great empire in ancient times here as elsewhere, had things turned out differently. Dream Focus 07:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
If you read the article closely, some words have been incorrectly changed on purpose. For example, I had to change Jared Diamond's name back from Dustin Diamond. Apparently someone's attempt to be funny. This whole page needs to be checked over for errors, unfortunately I can't do it now, so just be wary of the info on this page.
Cempire86 ( talk) 09:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I think we are all agreed, this article currently is useless for any purpose except advertising, especially Diamond's book. We need a professional article here, not spam. To me such an article would define the term Eurasia and explain how it got here, as a very minimum. Naturally it will need a lot of look-up work. All good articles do. So, I recommend you serious WP editors put your foots down. The advertisers have had this article long enough. Whatever they had to advertise has certainly got more publicity than many more worthy products and services. Time to bring this free ride to an end, don't you think? The public wants to see scholarship on Eurasia. Thanks. Dave ( talk) 11:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
It is well sourced enough (Diamond) and noted for his inclusion of North Africa, Sudan and parts of Ethiopia (at its southern most extent) in the classification of Eurasia. Weird and subjective. But this is what he says and it is notable to be included. Eurasia is of course another Eurocentric political mapping of that reality. -- Inayity ( talk) 14:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
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
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.
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)
Eurasia is the largest continental landmass only if you discount Eurafrasia, which completely includes Eurasia. -- Khajidha ( talk) 23:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
For example in this sentence: "This distinction between Europe and Asia has spread to the rest of the world, even though Asia contains multiple regions and cultures as large and populous as Europe, and as different and geographically separated from each other as they are from Europe."
Not only is this a fuzzy comparison, but it is a suggestion provided by the author, not a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.164.228.80 ( talk) 19:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
The article states that because there is no clear physical separation between Europe and Asia, many recognize Eurasia, but there then why ignore the fact that Africa is also connected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.118.249 ( talk) 00:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
How are they separated in the Sinai peninsula connects them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.118.249 ( talk) 21:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Russian tradition passes a boundary between Europe and Asia through Yekaterinburg. I understand there are several monuments on that line nearby. knoodelhed ( talk) 07:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
"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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by an unknown user
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)
No your the idiot 65.11.208.97 there is no reason that they should be considered separate continents. I guess according to you India has a better claim to being a continent, it has its own continental plate and is more diverse larger population, and has the himalayas seprating it from Eurasia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.161.2.238 ( talk) 20:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Your the idiot,ha. — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 03:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I have to ask, what is the rationale for having three maps of the same area at the top of this article, followed immediately by a fourth in §Geology §History? Surely two would suffice. —
67.14.236.50 (
talk) 02:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Eurasia is a controversial geography, do you agree?
189.102.236.56 ( talk) 01:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC).
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Eurasia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
Started a thread for removals and additions to be argumented so that the geopolitical concept becomes apparent. Costhee ( talk) 21:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
By the same undisclosed principle that makes "Eurasia" a large landmass of Europe and Asia, the oceans would also be a single one. Most of the citations to "Europe+Asia" are from british or american sources, that also are not peer reviwed and unprofessional. As it is now, the "Eurasia" page fits no classifier, has no story to tell and the it is full of half-sourced garbage that needs removal or shaving for the term has to define a working geopolitical concept and not a random collection of thoughts. Please follow the thread with an expeditive explanation for removing citations to the above, and also try adding new ones that can help with fixing it as a geopolitical unit. Costhee ( talk) 20:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Eastern Continent. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -- Tavix ( talk) 14:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I am removing the anthropology and genetics section as it as it inaccurately claims that in Anthropology and Genetics, the term "Western Eurasia" means "Western Asia." This claim is cited to the reference: Sengupta, Anita (2009), Heartlands of Eurasia: The Geopolitics of Political Space, Lexington Books, p. 25, ISBN 978-0-7391-3608-9
As you will have seen in the above link, the actual quote is something different (and it doesn't say anything about genetics). It is:
In reality the two continents are actually one. 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 South West 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 geographical sphere known as North Eurasia.
This inaccurate claim has been in this article for upward of six or seven years. If, by now, they haven't found a reliable source, they will not in the near future. When they do, they can first discuss it here, establish that they have the right source, and then the subsection can be reintroduced in the article. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Do you guys always repair problems by deleting instead of correcting? Bizarre behaviour. In fact, the original claim was correct; it was falsified in this series of edits. Given that Western Eurasia redirects to this section, I've restored it. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 22:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Is Albania in Asia? -- Uygurche ( talk) 19:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
In e.g. " Histoire de l'Indochine et du Cambodge en particulier" there is a mention of 2 routes that the earliest humans have taken to reach Asia from Africa: one southern route staying under the Himalayas mountains and another via Europe and then east wards north of the Himalayas mountains. Eventually those 2 groups met or clashed in Southeast Asia. The Southern route was more direct and would have lead to humans reaching South East Asia some 70.000 years ago versus 40.000 years ago for the group that took the longer European and then Northern route to Asia. Anybody with more info on this so we can work this into this article? Sincerely, SvenAERTS ( talk) 10:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The first sentence reads 'Eurasia (/jʊəˈreɪʒə/) is the largest continental area on Earth, comprising all of Europe and Asia.[3][4] Primarily in the Northern and Eastern Hemispheres, it spans from the British Isles and the Iberian Peninsula in the west to the Japanese archipelago in the east.'
This is incorrect. The easternmost part of Eurasia is not Japan. Chukotka is far more east to Japan. Please correct the first sentence, s'il vous plait.
216.165.193.39 ( talk) 15:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
discussed before but TL;DR lol /info/en/?search=Talk:Eurasia/Archive_1#Eurasia_is_a_continent Thewriter006 ( talk) 09:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)