Talk:Eurasia/Archive 1

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)

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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jao (talk • contribs) 18:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Only 10.6% ???
Water inclueded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.33.203.27 (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WebHamster (talk • contribs) 07:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Maps for continents - proposal
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:
 * Europe (current)
 * Asia (former)
 * South America (current)
 * It's an SVG instead of a PNG, so can be scaled easily.
 * New maps can be relatively created from existing SVGs (i.e. Europe's map - or the other SVG maps visible at File:Europe (orthographic projection).svg - can be recycled).
 * As an orthographic projection it allows the maps to be centred on the relevant continent or territory.

Assuming there's consensus for this, I'll post a request at 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 redpropagandadeeds 10:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course, I support this proposal. And, until that time, I believe the long-standing locator map should remain as is or until a better option is available.  A recent map added, without discussion or consensus, is insufficient.  Thus, I'm restoring the prior long-standing map.  Thoughts? Bosonic dressing (talk) 01:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Question about the current lead of the article
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.  D r e a m Focus  07:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I find your views on the South American civilisations interesting, and would love it if they found a South American civilisation that was scientifically and geographically advanced. Just imagine if the Mayans had known how to harness their mineral wealth and invented the steam engine or developed the Internal Combustion Engine!!! However, I must dispute the following comment "North America, specifically the USA of course, has totally dominated the entire world in recent times, with the largest economy"... you'll note that North America, specifically the USA of course, is second to the EU. That's what the CIA World Factbook states, which is unlikely to place the USA as second-best unless absolutely undeniable. Of course, due to descent in the ranks of certain EU countries, I don't doubt your "strongest military" comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.43.189 (talk) 00:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Dream Focus is ignoring the relevant point when he/she states that the US has been a dominant power in the recent past. That point being that the entire American society is based on a society transplanted from Europe. Diamond's point is that such a society would have been unlikely to develop in the Americas on its own. --Khajidha (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Entire Eurasia article needs to be revamped
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)

History and definition of the term
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)

North African needs mention
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)
 * Diamond included North Africa for the convenience of extending his argument. He never proposed actually changing the definition of the word. CMD (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

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". 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

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)


 * There appears to be no sound criteria for dividing Europe and Asia into separate continents. The Americas, although connected, are largely distinct land masses. The same can be said about Africa, which is connected to Eurasia. The division between Europe and Asia was originally a distinction based on racial and cultural differences, hardly a geographical boundary. Landroo (talk) 08:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The phrase "largest continental landmass" in the intro
Eurasia is the largest continental landmass only if you discount Eurafrasia, which completely includes Eurasia. --Khajidha (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The article lead has been changed to be more balanced on this point, with references. Europe and Asia are often considered separate continents, like in North America, but elsewhere they may not be. Eurafrasia is a point well made, and appears below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.134.84 (talk) 05:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * As the source asserts, physiographically, Eurasia is a single continental landmass ("Europe and Asia are currently one continental mass"; "Europe and Asia are physically part of the same landmass, but the two areas are culturally diverse"). Eurafrasia is not. And yes, Europe and Asia are sometimes considered different continents. This is already mentioned in the text. FonsScientiae (talk) 04:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * FonsScientiae, Europe and Asia are almost invariably considered to be different continents. Why suggest otherwise? Academic texts on continents such as Lewis & Wigen's magisterial book "The Myth of Continents: a critique of metageography" (UC Press, 1997) do not support FonsScientiae's personal POV and WP:OR. On pages 31-32 in a section on "The European Anomoly" they write, "Since Europe is by no stretch of the imagination a discernible landmass, it can be hardly be reckoned a continent according to the dictionary definitions of that term. The Ural and Caucasus ranges, which are said to form its eastern boundary, are separated by an embarassing 600-mile gap. [...] As a result, conscientious geographers sometimes group Europe and Asia together as the single continent of Eurasia, whittling down the number of major landmasses from seven to six [...] While a few professionals may regard Europe as a mere peninsula of Asia (or Eurasia), most geographers—and almost all nongeographers—continue to treat it not only as a full-fledged continent, but as the archetypal continent." So statements like that show that FonsScientiae's edits have no merits whatsoever. FonsScientiae's WP:OR does not override what can be found in WP:RS. Mathsci (talk) 05:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This is over-reliance on one specific source - and one with challenged English - as opposed to the many other reliable sources that clearly indicate the usual consideration of Europe and Asia in English as two distinct continents. That is not to say Eurasia is not considered a single continent in some quarters - and physiographically they form one continuous landmass (and the National Geographic reference covers off on this) - but it is misleading to unequivocally say Eurasia is the largest continental landmass when that is incorrect ... particularly if Eurafrasia is considered or, to get more technical, if you sub out the segment of Asia on the North American plate etc. And, yes, this section was instigated weeks ago by someone else who thought the Eurasia-is-largest wording was challenged. The consensus and evidence are clearly in favour of the current wording - until that situation changes, FS, do not edit war regarding this content. 70.54.134.84 (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Article tries to express opinion?
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)

Africa
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)


 * There is a clear physical separation between Asia and Africa: the relatively tiny Sinai peninsula, connecting two huge landmasses. AJD (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * (Moreover, Afro-Eurasia is linked in the very first subsection of the article. AJD (talk) 04:41, 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)


 * The Sinai peninsula is a tiny isthmus forming the only connection between two huge continental landmasses, same as Panama does for North and South America. AJD (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Yekaterinburg monuments
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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by an unknown user


 * 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)

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)

So many maps
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)
 * Lacking any response, I’ve removed the extra maps, and also removed an image featuring “Eurasian World” which the text does not discuss, as these didn’t seem to add anything to the article. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Eurasia is a controversial geography, do you agree?
Eurasia is a controversial geography, do you agree?

189.102.236.56 (talk) 01:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC).

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100524164422/http://www.eabr.org/eng/ to http://www.eabr.org/eng

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

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)


 * How deep and how wide are the canals? Whether it separates two continents, depends on that.   D r e a m Focus  07:14, 6 July 2009 (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)
 * A good remark; it can only be contradictory because it is about "a landmass". As it is now, the page is about nothing, only collects single-sided & random inputs from british and north-american sources; input that does not exactly apply when documenting "landmasses". Switching it to a geo/bio-political concept, as in use, should make something coherent out of it.

Shrinking EURASIA to a viable geopolitical concept
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)


 * Removing: "While a few professionals may regard Europe as a mere peninsula of Asia (or Eurasia), most geographers—and almost all nongeographers—continue to treat it not only as a full-fledged continent, but as the archetypal continent." / (1) Inappropriate quote from a north-american lecturer on south-asian history. (2) Not a peer-reviewed source, and no professional authorship (only involved with his Geocurrents blog - where Europe and E/W Asia are treated as separate BTW - for a while and no other geopolitical interest apparent). Costhee (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Eastern Continent listed at Redirects for discussion
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)

Anthropology and genetics
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:

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&amp;fowler «Talk»  20:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Good spot. CMD (talk) 20:33, 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)
 * I wasn't aware of this discussion when I trimmed down the same text a week ago. This used to be the content of an article that got merged here over ten years ago. It didn't have any sources, with the citation to Heartlands of Eurasia apparently tacked on much later. No surprise that it doesn't really support much of the content. I think WP:BURDEN clearly applies here: anything that has been questioned needs a source; that's especially so if the claims pertain to a field like human genetics. – Uanfala (talk) 06:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

European Bangladesh, and Asian Albania has never been in the world.
Is Albania in Asia? --Uygurche (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally it is considered to be in Europe. CMD (talk) 01:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks you. What Israel in Europe? Instead of Middle East... --Uygurche (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you mean Caucasian Albania, the area currently divided between Azerbaijan and Dagestan? Dimadick (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, but have you ever seen Israel in Europe or "Caucasian Angola"? --Uygurche (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This article looks at things from a geographical - tectonic plates starting point e.g. how could the earliest humans or humanides have walked from Africa to Asia?SvenAERTS (talk) 10:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Eurasia and (early) human history
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)

Misinfo in the first sentence
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)

how is eurasia a continent? seems like just a way to describe the union of 2 continents
discussed before but TL;DR lol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eurasia/Archive_1#Eurasia_is_a_continent Thewriter006 (talk) 09:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Because it's one landmass Jamesman666 (talk) 02:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)