User talk:Zaq1qaz

Carburetor
Zaq1qaz, your reinsertion of unsourced, POV original research at Carburetor is not appropriate. Remember, the standard for information in Wikipedia articles is not "truth", but verifiability, and assertions — especially those that can reasonably be challenged — must be supported with citations from reliable sources. It doesn't matter what you or I or anyone else knows or thinks he knows, it matters what we can prove per Wikipedia's requirements. Please try not to take it personally when text you've added to an article (or text you think is especially nifty for whatever reason) is modified as part of an effort to improve the article according to Wikipedia's standards, and remember to keep your comments in edit summaries relevant to the material at hand. Personal attacks such as you made, like other uncivil behaviour, are not OK. Please also take a few moments to click the links embedded in this comment to learn more about how to make your contributions more likely to remain part of the article as it evolves and improves with the effort of all who choose to participate. Remember, Wikipedia is a coöperative effort, not a competitive one. If you carry on inserting unencyclopædic text and not engaging on article talk pages, you run the risk of being blocked. Thanks for choosing instead to coöperate. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Update: Zaq1qaz, thanks for providing an appropriate citation. I've done a cleanup for clarity, and moved it out of the photo caption and into the article text where it belongs. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Europe edit.
Hi. I have a few issues with your recent Europe edit, and I was hoping you could clear things up for me. 1) Your edit says that the eastern border of europe IS disputed, then you mention a couple of sources 2000 or so years old. Would it ot be fair to say that the border has been disputed in the past, rather than is disputed. I am not aware of a dispute over the Eastern border for a hundred years or so. If a 2000 year time scale is allowable for the present tense, then surely Italy can lay a claim to ownership of much of the Near East. . 2) Your point about europe being a political definition is probably correct (links to the Roman, Byzantine, and Frankish, Saxon, and Swedish empires spring to mind (amongst others),  but you have failed to back it up with any references - it is therefore likely to be struck out for that reason in addition to any other. 3) Your only source for europe and asia being contiguous (hope I spelled it right) seems to be a chinese map a) From the chinese perspective perhaps "abroad" was "abroad" - additionally nowadays two types of maps exist, political and physical. How do you know that the Chinese map is not a political map - in which case the definition of continents is irrelevant. There is also AFAIK no evidence that the chinese actually visited europe (certainly not western europe) so the map would have been drawn on second-hand information b) Your conclusions about europe being a western political invention do not seem to be supportable by the single piece of evidence you suggest. Hope you can help clear things up for me Mariya - x ---Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Please improve your behaviour
Edit comments such as this is completely inappropriate and violated WP:NPA. You have already been warned over your behaviour here at Wikipedia. Further abuse may lead to you being blocked from editing. JdeJ (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. JdeJ (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And when exactly have I been warned, and by who? What kind of western justice is this that I can be slapped by unseen hands and not given a chance to respond?


 * For starters, you received this warning which you deleted just prior to your own post asking when you have been warned and by whom. As you removed the warning one or two minutes before asking the question, it surely couldn't have slipped your mind. JdeJ (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And who exactly gave me that warning? It was unsigned, and as near as I can tell, unwarranted based on my extensive (not) contribution lists.  The only edit I had made I was thanked for.  So where exactly did that mystery message come from.  What is with all these mysterious, anonymous 'warnings' and threats?

Can't we all just calm down a bit? A little love goes a long way. Mariya - x - --Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 22:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Obviously the warning was given by the user Scheinwerfermann, as you can see here . Given that it followed an inappropriate comment of yours, this one, it was perfectly valid. JdeJ (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I went to your link, all I got was the edit I made to the Carb article, for which user Scheinwerfermann later THANKED me for. What exactly gives here??


 * Where do I go to question the rightness and justification for these warnings?

You wrote about the user that he deletes anything he doesn't know or understand about cars, which is a lot. That is quite obviously a personal attack on that user. The place to report any warning you have been given by me or by anyone else and that you feel is unjustifies is at the administrators' noticeboard. You'll find it here WP:AN. JdeJ (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You are assuming bad faith and had no business reverting my edit. As stated in the very first line of the 3rd paragraph of this article, "Europe is the birthplace of Western culture."...Europe as a continent is a WESTERN fallacy, a viewpoint that is foisted on the world by westerners. Eastern maps predating those of "europeans" do not show a divide in the continental mass between "Asia" and "Europe". The idea of a European 'continent' is ridiculous, ESPECIALLY under the heading of "Geology". If you want to have it a separate 'continent' for the rest of the article, fine, but don't belittle the science of geology by claiming that there are actually two continents in fact, when they only exist by convention.


 * Yes, report my edits. At least do me the courtesy of letting me know where you have reported them to so that I may respond to your irresponsible reversions.


 * There are other viewpoints of the world other than just those of westerners. Australians for example have maps showing the southern hemisphere at the top. Ignoring other peoples and cultures is wrong. You are wrong to do so.Zaq1qaz (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, interesting points. Sources? Or is that just your POV? Mariya - x ---Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Opinions are for talk pages - sources are for article pages. If you have a source which backs up what you say about europe being a western..etc. etc. then let's hear it. Otherwise other users will (and have) assume it is just your WP:POV. That'swhat all this seems to stem from--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What sources do you want? A .jpg of an Australian map with the Southern Hemisphere on top?  Or a citation for ignoring other peoples' viewpoints is wrong?  You need only go to Wikipedia's article on plate tectonics to see the fallacy of a separate European continent.  So, tell me what you want references for and I'll provide them.Zaq1qaz (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I went to plate tectonics and it said it was a 20th century technique. What are your sources to counter four points I have raised above (numbered 1 to 4)--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So you want a 21st century source? Not Wikipedia of course. (Wikipedia doesn't count - read below!)--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Your list above is numbered 1-3. (Sorry, you two were editing faster than me at that point, and 4 got lost in an edit change thing.--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

1) Your edit says that the eastern border of europe IS disputed, then you mention a couple of sources 2000 or so years old. Would it ot be fair to say that the border has been disputed in the past, rather than is disputed. I am not aware of a dispute over the Eastern border for a hundred years or so. If a 2000 year time scale is allowable for the present tense, then surely Italy can lay a claim to ownership of much of the Near East. First, I'm not talking about BORDERS, I'm talking about GEOLOGIC continents. I'm not aware of when exactly plate tectonics was first accepted as a valid concept, 19th century I think.  So borders in a geology section is about as irrelevant as one can get. For when plate techtonice came about you could try reading the Wiki page!--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

. 2) Your point about europe being a political definition is probably correct (links to the Roman, Byzantine, and Frankish, Saxon, and Swedish empires spring to mind (amongst others), but you have failed to back it up with any references - it is therefore likely to be struck out for that reason in addition to any other.''' Sounds like you could provide some references yourself. Care to do so? Otherwise I'll look them up.'''

3) Your only source for europe and asia being contiguous (hope I spelled it right) seems to be a chinese map a) From the chinese perspective perhaps "abroad" was "abroad" - additionally nowadays two types of maps exist, political and physical. How do you know that the Chinese map is not a political map - in which case the definition of continents is irrelevant. There is also AFAIK no evidence that the chinese actually visited europe (certainly not western europe) so the map would have been drawn on second-hand information. '''The Chinese map I listed was just one example. By wanting to know if the Chinese map was political you are asking if in the past the Chinese laid claim to what is now Europe and so showed no border? Why would a political map that showed no Euro/Asia boundary be significant?''' Depends what the purpose of the map was for. Certainly Chinese mapmakers are unlikely to have had first hand knowledge, secondly if no border was shown, what borders were shown? Political borders? Were the Urals shown - not much of a map if they aren't! Thirdly, maps are contextualised information (you can tell I went to university!), so the purpose that the map was made for affects what is shown. Is it chinese territory? is it trade routes (no point showing the Urals - won't be crossing them!). And that's the point. You seem to be assuming that the chinese knew there was no plate border 600 years before such things were known about. The plate boundaries between eurasia, africa, etc.etc. are not shown on Persian/Islamic maps of the time either - Not on Mappa Mundi AFAIK either or Roman maps or Papal maps or on early to mid 19th C American maps. That's why the maps need to be contextualised. No-one thought the bits of land moved about (except by very small amounts due to devine intervention - the odd earthquake, gaping chasm etc. etc.) Plate tectonics is a Post-Darwin science, and that needs to be bourne in mind when making assumptions about earlier knowledge.--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Guess what? This is a talk page. ref's not required. YOU edited an article page! See the difference. I would not submit my points without references. Perhaps I can help by suggesting you read WP:REF, and Referencing for beginners. And calm down. I'm only tring to help. Mariya - x - --Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I went and rechecked the Plate_Tectonics page, and it clearly refers to the EURASIA plate/continent
 * ("Eurasian Plate covering Asia and Europe - Continental plate.")


 * I then went to the stub article on the Eurasia plate, and it too claims that the Eurasia landmass is one continent.


 * Again, I am perfectly willing to look up sources for my statements, perhaps I'll use the same sources as are used in the Plate Tectonics Wiki article? I only ask that other editors ask for citations before deleting things.

Regarding your comment that I had no business reverting my edit, I disagree. Your edit was full of speculations, original research and not sourced. It did not improve the quality of the article, instead it diminished it. You have already been encouraged by several other users to source your claims. JdeJ (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Instead of reverting an edit you feel needs references, isn't the PROPER thing to do is flag it with a FACT tag? Ask for a citation before deletion?  Why the need to quash a statement that is easily verified just by clicking on the link to Wikipedia's article on plate tectonics?Zaq1qaz (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Your statement that it is a western fallacy IS NOT on the plate tectonics page - it appears to be an unsupported conclusion you have drawn - therefore WP:OR and WP:POV Plus you didn't actually give the plate Tectonics page as a reference, and using WP pages as references is considered very bad form as it leads to the inevitable compounding of errors. Got any ADMISSABLE sources--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, Europe as a western fallacy is not on the tectonics page. Perhaps I should put it there?  And I know using Wikipedia is bad form.  I'll look things up in a geology book. Find a quote for it, and go ahead.--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you actually interested in resolving this or keeping an open-minded view of the world's geology?Zaq1qaz (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I rather thought that the world's changing geology was a changing fact, and it is only us that change our opinions about it. The Europe article has a bit right near the top about being in a peninsular of the eurasian plate. The section further down the page is clearly subsidiary to it. The number of continents seems rather arbitary too. You could have 4, or 5 (like when I was at school) or 7, or one for every plate. Question. Seeing as you take an interest in Geology - do plates ever divide or permanently join?--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's talk about unsupported conclusions and POV opinions factoring into Wikipedia. Just what FACT supports labeling me 'disruptive' or 'abusive'?  That I attempted to clarify and improve an article?  That I am willing to provide references and support for my statements if other editors promise not to 'shoot without warning' and gang up on me?  Why do I get abuse heaped on me for trying to fix an article?Zaq1qaz (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

''This was the view from the Eastern peoples. Europe is purely a Western, political, creation, artificially dividing a continent according to views held by the Western peoples'' is one of the statements you inserted in the Europe page. It may well be true. But is it verifiable? I think that's the one that upset the other contributor. Some would find it offensive, as they would any reference to racial motives (bit of a touchy subject in some parts of Europe)--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "Thus the concept of remote peoples possibly more advanced than themselves has always been present to Europeans, and Europe (like the individual countries within Europe) has always been classified as one in a list of sibling regions, at best by its own efforts temporarily primus inter pares. Inseparable from the Europeans' comparative viewpoint has been the sense that their own achievements were without final validity, being always subject to overshadowing by known or unknown civilisations outside Europe. This constant relativisation, especially vis-á-vis the East where through most of history the real rivalry lay, produced a social space loaded with competitive instability, in strong contrast to the paternally centred Chinese world space."


 * It was within this geographic-conceptual schema, under the major headings of 'Asia' and 'Orient, East', that the European idea of China took shape. Long before there was more than one or two sentences' worth of knowledge (even fabulous) about China itself, the genus into which new information would be fitted was ready prepared in the European mind."


 * From 
 * Andrew L. March:
 * The Myth of Asia


 * (New York: Preager, 1974), 23-43, 61-67


 * http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phalsall/texts/mythofasia.html

Great quote. Doesn't as far as I can see, back up your point about europe asia. No reasoning for why the line is where it was. The limit if Swedish/Rus expensionism prior to Peter the Great might be a better point to look at. (Peter founded Yekaterinburg - been there myself - to open up Siberia, as far as I remember off the top of my head)--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC) Plus what period in European thought is the quote referring to. Definitely doesn't apply to the 9th and 10th centuries, by which time a political foundation of commonality had already had its precedents set for wstern europe. Could apply to the renaissance esp. the earlier part. BY 1850, IT IS UNLIKE TO BE THE CASE - AND 1850 IS BEFORE THE PLATE TECTONICS THING!--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't want to cut and paste 25+ pages. Go to the web address to read the complete article.  Are only direct quotations allowed as references in Wikipedia or can paraphasing be used?  Why don't I just cut and paste all 25 pages into Wikipedia's article?


 * I don't see any response from the original editor who apparently doesn't like my non-eurocentric views. So, can I, or can I not, with references, add to the article on Europe?


 * The DATE/YEAR/CENTURY that plate tectonics was accepted as a valid theory does not affect the underlying REALITY of there only being ONE continent that stretched from The Atlantic to the Pacific oceans. The REALITY holds true whether accepted or realized.  Once upon a time the Earth was supposed to be a complete, perfect sphere with mountain ranges explained by the Great Deluge of the Bible, because that's all that was known about mountain formation.  The Earth is not a perfect sphere, mountain ranges are not just washed-up earth.  Do you think that until Copernicus, the Sun actually revolved around the Earth?Zaq1qaz (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Relativilistically (ala Einstein) the sun does go round the earth. I detect no movement at my point.--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well your source sems to think that the Romans knew about Europe and Asia. I am sure they didn't call it that though. Asia minor may have been in the writings, but europe? Any anyway, you seem to forget that the earth you to be flat. Perspective. The bit I'm on still looks flat to me. I can check it with a spirit level.

BUT the article gives no reason for why the European border should be any where near where it is now. The Romans never even conquered all of Germania (think that's what they called it. The Romans (and the Byzantines, franks, Saxons etc.) were also vary wary of Northern barbarians - pity your author doesn't mention it. Perhaps that's because he is writing about Chinese studies at the time of the Vietnam War (CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT!). It would, however biased it clearly seems to be, seem to constitute a valid source. You can, of course, paraphrase, but the paraphrase must retain the meaning of the original (bias and all)as closely as possible, and the text must justify the points you are making. Does the text actually make the points you are trying to demonstrate? I have a text that demonstrates that not all "europeans" felt the way your quote implies - it's from A History of Medieval Europe, RC Davis, ISBN 0582 48208 9, pub.Longman c.1970 (my copy has lost the publisherspage). Covers 312AD to about 1300AD--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a continent?
Yes it is! Europe and Asia are joined together by land, but they are cut off from each other by a long range of mountains. Europe is therefore classified as a separate continent. Think of them as conjoined twins, but they are not the same continent. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It is a continent created not by nature, but by fear. The "Europeans" saw anything outside of their home range as scary and frightening.  It was outside their realms, it was another 'continent' away.


 * Mongols on the other hand had no such view of 'Europe' and galloped their way merrily into 'Europe' conquering all the way.


 * 'Europe' as a concept is purely a Western conceit and has no basis in physical fact. 'Europe' and 'Asia' are all part of the same underlying continental mass.


 * I especially like the irony that the original home of "Caucasians", and the newly I.D.'d birthplace of blue eyes near the Black Sea, are both outside of 'Europe'. It is now thought that blue eyes, the very essence of a Northern European, was a mutation in ONE person born near the Black Sea.  Blue eyes are fading away in the human population as it is a regressive gene that is being pushed out of the gene pool.Zaq1qaz (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, that's how you upset people. As just about every European knows we all come from African apes, and Jesus wasn't as white as many of us (not very European at all, in fact). So where blue eyes come form is a bit irrelevant don't you think? I thought us Aryan types were supposed to be descended from folk who came from the patch between turkey and india (don't ask me exactly where - I am not an Aryan expert, even though I have the allergies;)- some went to Europe, some went to India). Possibly you are getting confused with the 1900-ish idea that white folk 'evolved' (in the 'progress' sense) from darker skinned folk. But no-one believes that now. Do they? I thought the current state of play was that skin colour changed over a 10000 to 20000 year time span, is a two-way thing, and that the Australian indigenous people got a lot darker after moving there. Various work has been done on IQ of different ethnic/social groups, but no consensus has ever been reached. The israelis allegedly even did research on whether there is a Jewish/non-Jewish/Arab gene that could be identified, and allegedly failed miserably. And can't we all get those snazzy DNA tests done to show which of 6 African women we are descended from Anyway, not everyone has thought like you. There was a fairly famous Roman called "Scipio Africanus". Think about it. But then Roman citizenship was not really racially based or linked to a limited territorial region. Some "Roman citizens" never visited Italy in their whole lives. Alexander the Great (Macedonian, but not from modern Macedonia AFAIK - long story) didn't really worry about territorial boundaries either - ended up in India. Frederik Barbarossa wrote to Saladin claiming Imperial rights over the areas that were the limit of Roman power (e.g. egypt, turkey, the near east etc). So he didn't really do your limited conception of Europe either. The Romans, Macedonians, Charlemagne and Frederik were not scared of clever foreigners either. They all believed they were right. They may have adopted some foreign customs (although the Franks and the Spartans generally thought it weak to do so), but they were not afraid of knowledge. I think you have taken a limited historical view that applied to some people at some times, and you are advancing it as a general theory. I again make my point that prior to 1900, Europe cannot have been a Western deceit, because plate tectonics were unknown, and after 1900 it was such an established term that no-one thought it worthwhile to change it.--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 02:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Plus there were apparently three black popes http://www.nbccongress.org/black-catholics/african-popes.asp, so maybe race is not / has not been the European issue you seem to think it is Mariya- x - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 02:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't really care where any modern Europeans came from, or what race they are. I care about the FACT that in REALITY, Europe is not a continent.  It was created by earlier cultures and peoples who didn't fully understand the concept of a continent;  peoples who used the label 'continent' to wall themselves off from the marauders and 'strangers' 'over the mountains'.  Just as there are actually only 4 great lakes in America (Michigan and Huron are just two bays of one lake), the concept of a Europe was created in the past and during a time when FACTS didn't interfere with DESIRES.  When the Catholic Church tortured those who didn't think the Sun and stars didn't revolve around the earth, when early map makers didn't check the water levels of all the great lakes, and when the peoples cowering behind the Ural Mountains knew no other continents.  Once upon a time, Africa was included as part of the 'European Continent'.  Do you still think that's true?


 * Just because people thought once upon a time that the earth was flat doesn't make it so forever.Zaq1qaz (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Surely continent has more than meaning. the word was (you say) used in the past, so it cannot have meant tectonic plate. Also if you want to define continent as tectonic plate, then I suggest you draw up a proposed list of continents using your definition, and we will see where that leads. Time to stop saying what things aren't, and instead start discussing what they are, perhaps. As a footnote, I am fairly sure that Russia counts as Europe (at least the bit to the Urals) because that was the bit that was developed before Peter the Great, and he undertook a deliberate plan of Europeanisation of Russia, culminating, perhaps, with the litery efforts of the great writers (e.g. Tolstoy and Dostoevsky) who were deliberately writing heavyweight works in order to be validated as part of European literature. Hope this helps, and I enjoy our discussions very much (I've improved my knowledge of plate tectonics for a start!) Mariya - x - --Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 07:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh please! If the definition of 'continent' is that there is a mountain range running north and south in the middle of it, North America would be split in three...the West Coast left of the Rocky Mountains;  the Mid-West between the Rockies and the Allegheny Mountains;  the East Coast right of the Allegheny's.


 * Please, let's make the article on North America correspond to the "European" definition of a continent why don't we. After that, we can fix the South American continent's definition and split it up into two, left and right of the Andes.Zaq1qaz (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, I know of a better solution: Why don't we just agree to disagree, and stick with the majorly accepted decision that Europe and Asia are classified as different continents. North and South America are joined together but are considered different continents, after all. It doesn't matter how the land is formed; all that matters is what will make the Europeans happy, and I think they'd be much happier if Europe and Asia are classified as different continents. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * But perhaps the much larger population in the eastern portion of the Eurasian continent would be happier to end the nonsensical partitioning of the one continent. And that is my whole point.  It is all about viewpoint.  And the Western Viewpoint is being advanced despite facts, reality and the viewpoints of a much larger group.


 * By the way, I didn't state that North and South America are one continent. I said that, following the reasoning used to partition the Eurasian continent into two because of a mountain range vaguely in the middle of it, that the same logic, applied to North America would divide it into 3 continents because there are two major north/south mountain ranges in North America, and that South America would, using the European logic, would be divided into two continents itself due to the Andes mountain range there.Zaq1qaz (talk) 04:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice logic. I don't want to agree with a certain editor about his views, but I can't agree that all that matters is what will make the Europeans happy. But the statement But perhaps the much larger population in the eastern portion of the Eurasian continent would be happier to end the nonsensical partitioning of the one continent. would need some backing up too! I don't know any Asians that think they are part of the same continent as Europeans. Anyhow, what about your proposed list of World continents? You want mine - I'll make do with the Seven we have - at least we know where we are. Less about what is not, and more about what is, methinks.--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If I might be allowed to but in, try looking at cultural differences in Europe and Asia because if 2 continents that are joined together should be one continent then we would have Europe, Asia and Africa being all one continent. Or if you go along the plate tectonics line, (and by the way I would like to see reliable non POV sources that state that a tectonic plate makes a continent) we would have Arabia as a continent the Philippines would be a continent as would the Caribbean, part of new Guinea and numerous bits of open sea with a few islands. To go back to what I said about cultural differences take an Indian and a Frenchman and compare them, then take an Indian and a person from Nepal and compare them, who is more similar? OR take a Russian and an Englishman and compare them. You will immediately see that these people are innately different. Anyway why are we having this discussion? Harland1 (t/c) 19:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Earlier on you said 'The "Europeans" saw anything outside of their home range as scary and frightening. It was outside their realms, it was another 'continent' away.' errm... in case you hadn't noticed the UK, France and some other EUROPEAN countries created massive empires, the UK's was larger even than your Mongols who invaded eastern Europe. So I don't think we were that afraid of the outside world. I would also agree that your comment 'Europe is purely a Western, political, creation, artificially dividing a continent according to views held by the Western peoples' would be highly offensive to many people here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harland1 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. 1. Why are we having this conversation? - Well, it is Zaq1qaz's Talk page, so I would have thought it was rather up to him/her what conversations are hosted here. 2. Thanks for introducing the problem of using plate tectonics to define continents. 3. What does Zaq1qaz think should be continents. 4. I notice that Harland1 feels that Russian and Englishmen are not similar. I would have to disagree here. Having spent time in both England and Russia, and having relatives in both countries, I would have to say that England and Russia have an awful lot in common. I would also suggest that reference is made to the point I made about the Europeanisation of Russia under Peter the Great. I would also remind everyone that only 95 years ago, the Royal Families of Russia, Germany, and Great Britain were very closely related. 5. I don't think the size of European colonial empires has much bearing on the definition of Europe, unless one thinks that Malaysia should be part of Holland, and Australia should be part of Britain. Hope this helps Mariya - x - --Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. I meant when I asked why we were having this conversation what is the point of it? It seems to get us nowhere, and majority consensus is that Europe and Asia are different continents, we on Wikipedia should reflect that consensus. 2. Your welcome... 3.I have no idea, his arguments confuse me, (maybe I'm just stupid...) 4. I will not question your authority, I have never been to Russia, however substitute someone from Turkmenistan for the Russian. 5.I wasn't saying that former empires should be part of Europe, I was merely trying to prove that the Europeans weren't scared by anything outside of their continent as Zaq1qaz seems to think. --Harland1 (t/c) 18:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This conversation started because he had said (Zaq1qaz) in another discussion that Europe and Asia were the same continent. They aren't. They are joined by land, but Siamese twins are joined together at birth, right? I said to think of them as that, but he went on about a bunch of weird opinions I didn't even wait to read through. When the land masses of the earth evolve again, Europe and Asia will likely split in half, anyway. I want no more input put into this discussion, as frankly it's getting ridiculous, and people are getting into unnecessary arguments. I'll finish it with saying that France and Thailand occupy the same content is ludicrous, no matter what geographical maps suggest. (She waves her hand to signal the discussion is at an end.) Wilhelmina Will (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC) I perfectly agree with you and I will agree to stop this discussion here. Harland1 (t/c) 16:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you still there?
Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 01:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)