Talk:Europe: Difference between revisions
imported>Domergue Sumien |
imported>Domergue Sumien |
||
Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
I object. These languages are "endangered" according to a sociolinguistic point of view, that can be verified in many surveys, for example in the book mentioned in a note (BADIA I CAPDEVILA Ignasi (2002) ''Diccionari de les llengües d’Europa'', coll. Diccionaris temàtics, Barcelona: Enciclopèdia Catalana.) | I object. These languages are "endangered" according to a sociolinguistic point of view, that can be verified in many surveys, for example in the book mentioned in a note (BADIA I CAPDEVILA Ignasi (2002) ''Diccionari de les llengües d’Europa'', coll. Diccionaris temàtics, Barcelona: Enciclopèdia Catalana.) | ||
#The loss of native speakers in Cornish and Manx doesn't impede the fact that they have still speakers mowadays (even if non native, in fact, there are now new native spekers of Cornish in some families); since these languages are spoken by a few speakers, they are endangered. Since Welsh is the native language of ''only'' a fifth of the population of Wales, this means logically that Welsh is endangered due to the advance of English.--[[User:Domergue Sumien|Domergue Sumien]] 00:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC) | #The loss of native speakers in Cornish and Manx doesn't impede the fact that they have still speakers mowadays (even if non native, in fact, there are now new native spekers of Cornish in some families); since these languages are spoken by a few speakers, they are endangered. | ||
#Since Welsh is the native language of ''only'' a fifth of the population of Wales, this means logically that Welsh is endangered due to the advance of English.--[[User:Domergue Sumien|Domergue Sumien]] 00:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:30, 25 January 2011
New structure
I have set up a new structure in the hope of attracting contributions on a broader range of subjects than is covered by the current draft. Nick Gardner 20:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
States of Europe
It is gratifying to see a fresh contribution so soon! The table seems to me to be a valuable addition to the article, but it interrupts the flow, and is inconsistent with the existing format, so I propose to delete it from the main page and add a link to it on an addendum subpage. I have created an addendum subpage for that purpose and copied the table to it.
However it is not my practice to make changes without providing an opportunity for discussion, so I shall defer the deletion for a few days. Nick Gardner 21:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced. A synthetic table containing basic facts is always useful inside an encyclopedic text. However, you are the main contributor of this article and I can understand that you perceive an unpleasant interruption in the flow. The table could be displaced at the end of the text, as an appendix, but it should remain in the main page; moving it to an "addendun subpage" would make it invisible. Something else: the table should be improved with two new columns at least: area and population--Domergue Sumien 22:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think it's great to have this table, and to extend it. I don't share Domergue's reservations about moving it to a special page. The subpages are very valuable for dense detail - timelines subpages can be more interesting (and more work) than the main article. But I'd consider giving the subpage an informative name rather than just 'Addendum', and of course flag its presence prominently in the main article. In a subpage the references to the sources of data on population and area could be included (dates of data are important to note). Data on GDP might also be worth adding, if you've the energy?Gareth Leng 23:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- I am content with an appendix provided that there is a prominent link to it in the text, but I prefer to use the CZ facility of subpages. I plan to develope a broad chronology as well, but I think that should be on a subpage rather than an appendix. I have added a panel above the lede, on the assumption that the subpage option is acceptable. Nick Gardner 06:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- So, my opinion is minoritary. I let you move the appendix to a subpage.--Domergue Sumien 10:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- If I may make a suggestion, entries in the language column could be annoted (R), (S) or (G). A link to the table could then be added to the languages paragraph on the main page, enabling tedious cataloguing there to be avoided. Nick Gardner 10:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- So, my opinion is minoritary. I let you move the appendix to a subpage.--Domergue Sumien 10:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- I am content with an appendix provided that there is a prominent link to it in the text, but I prefer to use the CZ facility of subpages. I plan to develope a broad chronology as well, but I think that should be on a subpage rather than an appendix. I have added a panel above the lede, on the assumption that the subpage option is acceptable. Nick Gardner 06:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think it's great to have this table, and to extend it. I don't share Domergue's reservations about moving it to a special page. The subpages are very valuable for dense detail - timelines subpages can be more interesting (and more work) than the main article. But I'd consider giving the subpage an informative name rather than just 'Addendum', and of course flag its presence prominently in the main article. In a subpage the references to the sources of data on population and area could be included (dates of data are important to note). Data on GDP might also be worth adding, if you've the energy?Gareth Leng 23:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Ethnicity
Domergue: Would it be a good idea to add some reference to genetic origins to your (admirable) paragraph on ethnicity? If so, this might help. Nick Gardner 06:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Done (here)!--Domergue Sumien 14:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
The treatment of history
I have been struggling with the problem of what to say about European history in an article on Europe. After a few attempts I realised that it would be foolish to attempt to summarise two thousand years of history in one paragraph - and that even to do so in a five-page article would be a challenge. I concluded that all that was needed was a brief account of those aspects of history that are having a significant influence upon the present state of Europe. That meant that many events of major importance in themselves could be omitted. I realised, for example, that Europe's colonial adventures needed no mention since - although important to those affected - they have litle or no influence on present-day Europeans. I concluded that the colonies would be an important part of the - yet to be written - article on the history of Europe, but would only be a digression in an article on Europe. I came to the same conclusion about the three modern wars - their origins and conduct would be an important feature of a history of Europe article, but the peace settlements are the only matter that is needed in the Europe article. The same would seem to apply to the rise and fall of Bismark, Napoleon and Hitler, and of Communism and Fascism. To include that sort of thing is not just unnecessary itself - it is apt to distract the reader's attention from the matter in hand. The current history paragraph and its supporting timelines reflect those conclusions. Nick Gardner 08:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Endangered?
In the Addendum subpage (no separate talk page?), Cornish, Manx and Welsh are listed as endangered. In fact
- there have been no native speakers of Cornish for centuries
- Ned Madrell, the last native Manx speaker, died in 1969
- Welsh is the native language of a fifth of the population of Wales
If this sample is any indication of the reliability of the source(s) used, maybe the whole lot should be deleted. (While I'm about it, why are there 2 lists of countries, in the Catalogs and Addendum subpages?) Peter Jackson 11:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- If no-one objects, I will delete the text on the catalogs subpage. I do not consider myself qualified to make judgements about the interpretation of the term "endangered", nor about proposed amendments to the other material on languages. Nick Gardner 11:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I object. These languages are "endangered" according to a sociolinguistic point of view, that can be verified in many surveys, for example in the book mentioned in a note (BADIA I CAPDEVILA Ignasi (2002) Diccionari de les llengües d’Europa, coll. Diccionaris temàtics, Barcelona: Enciclopèdia Catalana.)
- The loss of native speakers in Cornish and Manx doesn't impede the fact that they have still speakers mowadays (even if non native, in fact, there are now new native spekers of Cornish in some families); since these languages are spoken by a few speakers, they are endangered.
- Since Welsh is the native language of only a fifth of the population of Wales, this means logically that Welsh is endangered due to the advance of English.--Domergue Sumien 00:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Article with Definition
- Developing Articles
- Nonstub Articles
- Internal Articles
- Geography Developing Articles
- Geography Nonstub Articles
- Geography Internal Articles
- Politics Developing Articles
- Politics Nonstub Articles
- Politics Internal Articles
- Sociology Developing Articles
- Sociology Nonstub Articles
- Sociology Internal Articles