Q1: Are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Cyprus really in Europe?
A: As definitions of Europe vary, this article attempts to follow Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy. That means covering the view that they are in Europe, as well as the view that they are not.
The issue has been raised repeatedly here, extensively in 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, and briefly mentioned in many other discussions.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
More information Article milestones, Date ...
Europe was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography
Europe is not a continent: Section on Definition has several unsourced sections, and lede should be revisited.
Animated, colour-coded map showing some continents and the region of Oceania (purple), which includes the continent of Australia. Depending on the convention and model, some continents may be consolidated or subdivided.
This has been brought up several times, but it continues to not just be listed as a historical quirk, but in the lede of the article within the first three words. The insistence on using the term continent at all is a bit backwards and outdated, even if they still teach it to kids in Elementary school.
Europe is not a geographical continent and geographers have little reason to continue to teach lower grade children (grades 1-4) that there are seven continents and that Europe is one of them.[1]
That Europe's continental status may be denied with a wink but then continually confirmed in practice does not indicate a simple oversight. Nor can it be dismissed as a mere convenience, a simplification necessary for making sense of a complex world. Rather, Europe's continental status is intrinsic to the entire conceptual scheme. Viewing Europe and Asia as parts of a single continent would have been far more geographically accurate, but it would also have failed to grant Europe the priority that Europeans and their descendants overseas believed it deserved. By positing a continental division between Europe and Asia, Western scholars were able to reinforce the notion of a cultural dichotomy between these two areas-a dichotomy that was essential to modern Europe's identity as a civilization. This does not change the fact, however, that the division was, and remains, misleading. Not only do Europe and Asia fail to form two continents, they are not even comparable portions of a greater Eurasian landmass. Europe is in actuality but one of half a dozen Eurasian sub-continents, better contrasted to a region such as South Asia than to the rest of the landmass as a whole. (It would be just as logical to call the Indian peninsula one continent while labeling the entire remainder of Eurasia-from Portugal to Korea-another.) [2]
Europe qualifies as a continent — that is at least what we are taught in school — but a continent whose contours are difficult to define, especially toward the east (see Chapter 1). How is it that a continent, a mass of land surrounded by bodies of water, could find itself indistinguishable from bordering lands? It is important to grasp this paradox in order to think about space correctly and reflect on the way we place ourselves within it. For Europe, in fact, is only a continent through conceptual usurpation. A sort of geographic coup was orchestrated in the 19th century, almost accidentally. Until then, Europe was only a part of the world, such as Asia, Africa, America and Oceania, and there were only two continents, the "Old World" and the "New World". In fact, one of the problems perhaps arises from this toponymical oversight: What do we name the continent of which Europe is only a part: Eurasafrica? Eurafrasia (Grataloup 2007)? Africeurasia (Boucheron 2009)? Afro-Eurasia? Or Eufrasia (Capdepuy 2012)? This last suggestion is the shortest contraction and perhaps the most euphonic for saying, in one word which almost resembles a first name, Eu(rope), (A)fr(ica) and Asia..[3]
Europe is a continent in one of several models. From an academic perspective, there are several sources that not only state clearly that Europe does not really meet the definition of a continent, but go on to state that the reason Europe was ever included is rooted in colonialism. The idea of continents is not as useful as it was once thought, and the idea that Europe is a separate one is grounded in the same arguments used in Race (human categorization) as a means of classifying people. I don't see why we should give preference to one of several models, especially when there are sources that demonstrate this particular model only really exists in a Eurocentric framework divorced from reality. Our use of this model so prominently violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in my opinion, as we are choosing to endorse the European model over those used in other parts of the world. I tagged the section on definitions for needing more sources, the three above should work to fix it. I suggest we switch to using the word "region" in the lede to describe Europe. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:29, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
No 'continent' really meets the definition of a continent. It's been awhile since I've read The Myth of Continents, but I recall that a primary thesis was that continents were essentially a Greek concept that somehow morphed throughout time into what we have today. Further, they did note that the system was a global adoption, so while eurocentric in origin it is not competing with other models in mainstream usage. We should be clear on the arbitrariness in the content where relevant, perhaps more so on this article than others, but we should not move beyond the way the topic is generally treated. CMD (talk) 07:42, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Continents are (as you clearly show by the shift from old and new world to contemporary use) as much a social as a geographic construct. However, if you would like to move to a purely geographic definition - what would that definition be? Based on continuous landmass leads to weird exclusion (New Zealand would be a continent apart from Australia), based on tectonic plates (in which case e.g. India and Arabia should be listed as separate continents). In any case we need high quality sources to deviate from common usage which tends to list Europe as a continent. Arnoutf (talk) 10:53, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
There are multiple models in use across the world, the one that has Asia and Europe as completely separate is one such model. For example, in the article for Continent it states "The six-continent combined-Eurasia model is mostly used in Russia and some parts of Eastern Europe," and "The six-continent combined-America model is taught in Greece and many Romance-speaking countries—including Latin America." No continent meets the definition of continent for the same reason that no human race really meets the definition of a human race. Both the continents and the races are old models based on Eurocentric and ultimately incorrect views of the world. That said, we can change the word "continent" to "region" in the lede, and make mention later in the article that it is included as a continent in some models. Shift to the word region is much like changing from using the word race to Ethnicity.
@Arnoutf @Chipmunkdavis, I have three sources listed, one from 1962, another from 1997, and another from 2025. This problem has been known for a long time, but we are perpetuating geographic nonsense, essentially because such nonsense is tradition at this point. The Earth isn't the center of the universe, Pluto isn't a planet, and Europe isn't a continent. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 15:22, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
We are perpetuating the nonsense because despite the proposed problem being known about for a long time, as in these sources, no change has ever caught on. Unlike Pluto, shuffling the terminology around Europe doesn't create an otherwise coherent remaining system. CMD (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
"The Middle East and North Africa (MENA), also referred to as West Asia and North Africa (WANA) or South West Asia and North Africa (SWANA), is a geographic region which comprises the Middle East (also called West Asia) and North Africa together. "
"Central America is a subregion of North America. Its political boundaries are defined as bordering Mexico to the north, Colombia to the southeast, the Caribbean to the east, and the Pacific Ocean to the southwest."
"Southeast Asia is the geographical southeastern region of Asia, consisting of the regions that are situated south of China, east of the Indian subcontinent, and northwest of mainland Australia, which is part of Oceania."
Based on these examples, the lede could read "Europe is a geographic region consisting mostly of a peninsula on the Eurasian land mass, located entirely in the Northern Hemisphere and mostly in the Eastern Hemisphere."
There are multiple models of continent, not all of which include Europe. We have sources saying that not only is Europe not a continent, but the model that does include it is only doing so because of a Eurocentric view based on imperialism. There is alternative language to describe regions on pages. Continuing to list Europe as a continent is perpetuating nonsense, changes have caught on in other countries, as the the 6 continent model is not the only one taught globally in schools. We are giving undue weight to the (problematic) European perspective. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 16:30, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
The same arguments could apply to the other continent pages as well. CMD (talk) 16:38, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
You're right! We could, and probably should. Europe is the most problematic though. Another source/quote:
Convention recognizes the existence of a number of continents which are discrete entities though contiguous with other continents. In this summary, continent-continent boundaries are drawn only along recognizable active plate boundaries.(The difficulties of plate boundary recognition are to be addressed in a future paper.) This means that Europe and Asia do not have separate existences; the Ural chain has long been an interior landform of the Eurasian continent.[4]
If Europe is a peninsula there must be an uncontroversial isthmus. Can you please identify where that is? I am by the way not denying that the division of the European-Asian landmass is rather arbitrary. Since you are hammering on a strictly geographic definition of continent, I challenge you to provide one that is unambiguous definition and (1) excludes Africa from Europe-Asia (2) does not exclude Arabia and India (although they are on different tectonic plates) AND (3) allows (eg) New Zealand and Australia to be a single continent even though separated by a substantial sea/ocean (and similar for Iceland far away from mainland, Philippines which is both detached from Asia AND on a different tectonic plate). If no satisficing geographic definition that cover all this can be accepted as definition for continent there is no other option than to accept the definition is at least part a social construct - and hence whatever is customarily named as continent is a continent. Arnoutf (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Then again the continents article clarifies that depending on assumptions the number of continents can range between 4 and 7. And it lists 5 different classification schemes to define continents of which geography is merely one. So why should it take prominence here? That seems more something to get consensus for on the continent page first. Arnoutf (talk) 17:13, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
I believe you mean geology, not geography. Geologically, the article on continent lists Africa, Antarctica, Australia, Eurasia, North America, South America, Zealandia. The continents article is describing the historic use of the term continent, which includes the fact Europeans have declared Europe to be a separate continent. It describes the various models without taking a stand on any in particular. Looking at the sources above, the models that list Europe as a continent to so "to grant Europe the priority that Europeans and their descendants overseas believed it deserved." The article Race (human categorization) similarly describes Historical race concepts, this does not mean we should endorse these historical concepts on other pages describing groups of people. While we should mention that Europe is included in some definitions of continent, declaring that it is one is endorsing one model, and the most imperialistic and biased model at that. The article here describes the region of Europe. To quote the lede for region "In geography, regions, otherwise referred to as areas, zones, lands or territories, are portions of the Earth's surface that are broadly divided by physical characteristics (physical geography), human impact characteristics (human geography), and the interaction of humanity and the environment (environmental geography). Geographic regions and sub-regions are mostly described by their imprecisely defined, and sometimes transitory boundaries, except in human geography, where jurisdiction areas such as national borders are defined in law. More confined or well bounded portions are called locations or places." I have included four citations that go into detail on this, I do not see sources offering a good reason to declare Europe a continent, and don't see a reason we should be choosing one model over another. While the article on continents does not take a stand on which model is correct, this page describing Europe does. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:37, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Do sources offer a good reason to declare Asia a continent? CMD (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
From what I've seen, the sources mostly discuss the issue of describing Europe as it's own continent. Geologically, Europe is a peninsula, we can call the land mass that Europe is a peninsula on Asia or Eurasia. We should likely change the article on Asia as well, but Europe is the most problematic, and if we can make the change to the lede here, I will push over there to change the lede as well. India is on the Indian subcontinent, which is on the Indian plate. Europe is a peninsula on the Eurasian plate, just like Alaska is on the North American plate. Separating India from Eurasia would make sense geologically. India has a unique culture from the rest of Eurasia, separating India culturally makes as much sense as separating Europe. Describing Europe and Asia as separate cultural regions makes some sense, but the boundary between them is a gradient, not a firm line. Splitting Eurasia into two continents to satisfy the egos of Europeans is silly. We should try to avoid ambiguous terms like continent in the lede sections of these geographic regions if possible, especially when the use of a term is based on imperialism and Eurocentric views. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:58, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Another note: The page Boundaries between the continents states "In the modern sense of the term "continent", Eurasia is more readily identifiable as a "continent", and Europe has occasionally been described as a subcontinent of Eurasia.", with another source.[5]GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 18:39, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
The problem remains that the entire concept continent seems at least to some extent based on European imperialistic views as well as a need to draw hard border. As you say there is much of a cultural continuum between Europe, Asia and Africa (e.g. the mediteranean countries in these three continents share much culture, more so than Ireland, Botswana and Japan) making any hard border somewhat arbitrary. But these would be arguments to do away with the concept of continent altogether. Arnoutf (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
I do think we should do away with the term continent altogether in the lede. We can mention it as a historical quirk. We can change the lede to: "Europe is a geographic region consisting of a peninsula and several outlying islands on the Eurasian plate, located entirely in the Northern Hemisphere and mostly in the Eastern Hemisphere." GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:00, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Another set of quotes from another source:
In lists of continents compiled outside the United States, Europe and Asia are often combined as Eurasia.[6]
If one considers Eurasia a continent, though, Europe is merely a subcontinent attached to the larger continental landmass. Other subcontinents might include the Arabian Peninsula of southwestern Asia, the southern cone of South America, and ALASKA (the northwestern peninsula of North America).[6]
Bro, I know for a fact that China and India also teach the seven-continent model which classifies Europe as a continent. I know Europe failed to meet the strict definition of continent, but for now, I don't think you can single-handedly change Europe's continent status here.
@Arnoutf: A peninsula is a landform that extends from a mainland, is connected to the mainland on only one side, and is mostly surrounded by water. An isthmus is a narrow piece of land connecting two larger areas across an expanse of water by which they are otherwise separated. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:03, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Comment Europe is widely quoted as a continent, although it failed to meet the basic definition of continent. It is not a discrete landmass surrounded by the ocean, such as mainland Australia or Antarctica. ~2025-40137-61 (talk) 03:38, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Whose basic definition of a continent is that? It isn't exactly a universal definition. I'd say it's the other way around: From the fact that, of the seven land expanses considered in many parts of the world to be continents, only two are completely surrounded and separated from other continents by ocean, it follows that that can't possibly be taken seriously as the definition.
Dictionaries punt on this one, defining "continent" tautologically as one of those land masses we call continents. Oxford English Dictionary: "One of the main continuous bodies of land on the earth's surface. Currently there are no strict criteria for defining continents, but they generally correspond to continental shelves. They can also be defined along cultural lines." Cambridge: "one of the seven large land masses on the earth's surface, surrounded, or mainly surrounded, by ocean and usually consisting of various countries". Merriam-Webster: "one of the six or seven great divisions of land on the globe". Largoplazo (talk) 04:45, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
The original definition invented by the Greeks. At that time, they thought Europe, Asia, and Libya were three discrete landmasses. Hence, they invented the three-continent model. Obviously, now we know that the Greeks were wrong, but their classification has prevailed.
Out of those modern dictionary definitions, I reckon that the one from Merriam-Webster is the best. Continents are nothing but major geographical regions. ~2025-40137-61 (talk) 05:20, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Are you saying that the Greeks both considered Anatolia to be on a separate continent because they thought of the trip across the Bosphorus as an ocean voyage and that despite their empire stretching continuously along the Mediterranean coast from Anatolia to Libya, they imagined anyway that Asia and Africa were separated by an ocean?
As for your agreement that continents are major geographic regions: Yes, and Europe is one of them. Largoplazo (talk) 14:33, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment: I opened up a Proposal at the Village pump addressing this. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
That is one footnote in an article that discusses how Europe is generally considered a continent (and why that consideration is vague and lacks a clear meaning). CMD (talk) 13:47, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
Your suggested sentence implies that Europe is primarily considered a cultural area that, incidentally, is often called a continent as well, which I believe is the opposite of reality. Largoplazo (talk) 14:23, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
The same (negative) level as changing the abbreviation used to date the years before and after Christ to be "inclusive," "neutral," and other politically correct phrases... without changing the event from which the years are counted. Ideological and completely unnecessary. Sira Aspera (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
Peninsula?
I'm bemused by the assertions above that Europe is a peninsula given that it doesn't seem to me to be shaped like one, no more than Western Australia or West Irian, and that the Peninsula article gives no hint of that and identifies the Arabian Peninsula as the world's largest. Largoplazo (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Equal Earth with Tissot's Indicatrices of Distortion.
Looking at an equal area map might make it more apparent. To quote the page Geography of Europe, " Physiographically, it is the northwestern peninsula of the larger landmass known as Eurasia (or the larger Afro-Eurasia); Asia occupies the centre and east of this continuous landmass." The article goes on to say "Europe is sometimes called a "peninsula of peninsulas", to draw attention to the fact that Europe is a relatively small, elongated appendage to Asia, and that a large part of Europe is made up of peninsulas." It includes the citation to national geographic for that quote here.[7] That source does define Europe as a continent, but National Geographic is an American magazine so it isn't particularly surprising. Just pointing out I'm not pulling the term "Peninsula" from the Luminiferous aether. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:31, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Another fun quote looking into this from one of the most Eurocentric pieces of literature I've ever read:
"No other continent has so many peninsulas, in fact the continent itself is but a peninsula of Asia."[8]
To elaborate on why this is an issue, here is another quote from the same article:
Europe is the center of the intellectual, cultural, scientific, industrial, and commercial world. In fact the higher civilization of the world, outside eastern and southeastern Asia, is European, or slightly modified European; and nearly all modern advancement in the Orient is due to European influence.[8]
First I want to make clear that I disagree with that quote, but the idea that Europe is a continent comes from an extremely problematic and Eurocentric perspective. Europeans wanted to be so special that they geographically declared themselves their own continent. Through the same warping of definitions, we might as well declare the United States a planet. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
You say this as though this was a Europe-wide strategy. As I understand it, the classical division of the world as known by the Greeks into three chunks of land known as Asia, Europe, and Libya was, just so, a product of Greeks. It seems unlikely to me that the driver for this division was a desire by Greeks in the 6th and 5th centuries BCE to establish an identity for themselves as people more closely aligned with whoever was living in the Apennines and the Alps and Scandinavia and Iberia at the time than with whoever was residing in Anatolia or the Levant or Arabia or China. Largoplazo (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Ancient geography and contemporary geography have many dividing lines. The concept of the continents 2,000 years ago is tremendously different from the concept we had 500 years ago, or 100 years ago. The version we have today that gives Europe a special place as a continent (while relegating India, the Middle East, and other major cultural regions to "sub-continent" status) is very much the one that believed "Europe is the center of the intellectual, cultural, scientific, industrial, and commercial world. In fact the higher civilization of the world, outside eastern and southeastern Asia, is European, or slightly modified European; and nearly all modern advancement in the Orient is due to European influence." There are other models, most more logical then giving Europe a special status as honorary continent, and no reason to endorse the Eurocentric model with Wikivoice. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 00:58, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
This sounds like the tail wagging the dog. Europe was known as Europe first. Then, very much more recently, people in Europe arrogantly claimed the fact of being European as a mark of superiority and began denying contributions from elsewhere. The concept of Europe as a top-level unit of geography wasn't what was new.
It's a bit like saying that, because Japanese came at some point to see themselves as being superior to all other peoples, recognizing Japan as a country today is itself the perpetuation of a Japanocentric concept that we should reject. Largoplazo (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
The map of Earth's principal tectonic plates
Ancient Europeans divided the world into regions with the knowledge they had. Today, there are multiple methods that we can divide the world up globally, and several different versions of the continents. People in the 19th and 20th century were not simply deferring to the ancient European definitions when creating new models to account for North/South America, Antarctica, and Australia. Europe's special status as a separate continent from the broader landmass was done because they believed Europe was so special and exceptional, it qualified by the human geography alone. There are other models that do not list Europe as a continent today, but Wikipedia has adopted the European model in this article and others. Japan is not declaring itself a continent, while ambiguous, the term country is 100% a product of human culture, this is a false equivalence. It is actually possible to create a country through the power of human imagination alone. We should likely move to retire the term continent as a primary descriptor of land masses in our articles, and instead use physical geography and human regions. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:11, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
If they weren't deferring to the ancient account, was it just coincidence that they name they chose for the area inhabited by those they felt were special was the same name assigned in ancient times and that the area they considered to be covered by the name "Europe" was roughly the same as the area designated by that name in ancient times? Largoplazo (talk) 04:20, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
I don't think you are aware of the actual history surrounding the concept of the Continent, or the history of dividing Europe into one. I recommend reading the Etymology section on the continent page, and perhaps the Modern definitions from this page. Continents, as we know them today, are a fairly modern invention. The idea that Europe and Asia should be separated in this model goes back to antiquity, but there was not a clearly defined boundary (as no boundary actually exists). Insistence on referring to Europe as separate as we developed the modern model, despite evidence to the contrary, despite alternative models that are more consistent, despite multiple citations in this talk page pointing out the issue, is Eurocentric. We should mention the historic model somewhere, and focus on physical geography and human regions when describing places. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:35, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
If I get it correct the ancient Greeks divided the Mediterranean area into 3 subsection (1) Europe Spain--Bosporus (2) Asia Bosporus--Sinai/Suez (3) Africa Suez--Maroc. Perfectly sensible from their worldview that was very Mediterranean centric. That these names has since be applied to distinguish continents and that the definition of continents has an odd history seems to intertwine with this all making it rather complicated again showing that the whole idea of continent and their naming is a social convention more than an absolute truth. Arnoutf (talk) 10:00, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
It is more the Greeks in Greece divided themselves from the Greeks in Asia by the Aegean Sea, which did form a very clearly defined boundary that actually existed. (And my understanding is originally Europe referred to areas north of Greece, and only later did Greece become included within it.) The border between Asia and Africa meanwhile was the Nile, Suez came later. CMD (talk) 10:38, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
"From the 16th century the English noun continent was derived from the term continent land, meaning continuous or connected land and translated from the Latin terra continents. The noun was used to mean "a connected or continuous tract of land" or mainland. It was not applied only to very large areas of land—in the 17th century, references were made to the continents (or mainlands) of the Isle of Man, Ireland and Wales and in 1745 to Sumatra. The word continent was used in translating Greek and Latin writings about the three "parts" of the world, although in the original languages no word of exactly the same meaning as continent was used."
The term continent is a fairly modern invention in English, and the definition has changed over time as we gained additional information about the world. We are projecting our modern definitions and concepts onto the people in the past, regardless of if they actually had these views, in order to use this imagined historic definition to gain support for our modern definitions. Some people used it in such a way that would necessitate complete separation from other land areas, so that all continents needed to be islands. Today, there are several different models of continent based on our modern understanding of the world, including the geologic definition. The reason the model of Europe being separate is still taught in schools, and so desperately clung to, is because of Eurocentric views. There isn't a definition of continent that can be universally applied that results in the 7 continent model including Europe. The Middle East and North Africa are a culturally separate region from Sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia, or Europe. India is culturally distinct from the rest of Eurasia, AND it exists on its own geologic tectonic plate. If we want to use the word continent as a geographic descriptor, it should either be a model that is consistent and not ambiguous, or use other geographic terms to define regions that are not dependent on the cultural conventions of Europeans. For example, we could say:
"Europe is human geographic region consisting of a peninsula and several outlying islands mostly on the Eurasian tectonic plate, located entirely in the Northern Hemisphere and mostly in the Eastern Hemisphere. Europe has a shared cultural, political, and historical identity that distinguish it as a region from the rest of Eurasia, however there is not a universally agreed upon boundary between Europe and the rest of Eurasia. Historically, some geographers have gone as far as to classify Europe as a separate continent, but that model has failed to create a universal definition that can be applied to Europe without being applicable to other regions, and has been criticized as giving priority to Europe in order to support a cultural dichotomy between Europe and the rest of Eurasia."
That would be consistent with the literature without actually endorsing a model. I have citations to back this up included on this talk page. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:07, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
All continents are human geographic regions, that is what a continent is. You say "There isn't a definition of continent that can be universally applied that results in the 7 continent model including Europe" as if there is a different definition that gets a better number, but there isn't one. There is no model that is consistent and not ambiguous. CMD (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
There is a physical geologic definition, listed above already, and all of the other models on the continent page are a bit more consistent. The model that includes Europe as a distinct continent, but not other regions, is a European world view. As there isn't a model that is consistent and unambiguous, then the term isn't very good. We can use other physical descriptors without endorsing a model that exists. We are currently using a Eurocentric method to divide the world, which is not neutral. We can discuss continents as a way things were historically divided, and discuss the different ways they were divided, but we should not explicitly choose one for the definitive definition. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 18:28, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
The only continents that meet the geologic definition are maybe South America and Antarctica. Continents remain a way things are currently divided, and reflecting real-world bias is what we are meant to do. There is an irony on criticism of a Eurocentric model leading to example text using Eastern Hemisphere, which is specifically premised on making London the centre of the world. CMD (talk) 03:07, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
The geologic map is above, Africa, Australia, Antarctica, Eurasia, North America, and South America ALL are on their own plate, although several can be subdivided because they are comprised of multiple plates. The Somali plate, Arabian Plate, Indian Plate, and Caribbean plate all could have an argument to be split from their respective continents, but Europe is a peninsula on Eurasia. There are multiple models of continents that are used to divide stuff, and different cultures have different approaches, while this article firmly adopts one. Latitude lines are not arbitrary, but Longitude are you're right, but they don't pretend to be anything other then a geographic coordinate system. There is a Internation standard that defines them, and to the best of my knowledge, there is no definition of continent from the International Organization for Standardization. As you've said, "No 'continent' really meets the definition of a continent," so why use the term as a primary descriptor at all?
I've proposed a change, and provided sources that support it, I've yet to see a compelling argument for the status quo. You linked to tedious editing, which states "you'll have to wait until it's been reported by reliable sources or published in books from reputable publishing houses." I have several sources in this talk page, I'm the only one citing anything, and my arguments are perfectly verifiable. The sources span over a century and include a mix of peer reviewed articles, books from reputable publishing houses, and other sources. Wikipedia:Wikilawyering and accusing change proponents of disruptive, tendentious, or TLDR editing is not an argument. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:19, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
None of Australia, Eurasia, North America, or Africa map to one geologic plate. Your points have been responded to, the compelling argument is that sources continue to mostly describe Europe as a continent, as they do the various others. we use the term as a primary descriptor on this page because it is the primary descriptor on the other page, and because that is what they are. Attempts to call Europe a peninsula are themselves working back from treating it as a continent. There is no reason otherwise to handle it as a unit, much like there is no reason to handle Asia as a unit outside of the continent framework. CMD (talk) 04:51, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
My points have been dismissed without sources to back them up. I'm providing sources to support a change to the lede, and have seen no reason to continue using the term continent to define Europe in the lede outside of circular references to other Wikipedia pages that also could be changed. The fact is there is not one definition of continent, the model that includes Europe is Eurocentric nonsense, and there is no reason to use the continents as our primary framework besides bias towards the model taught in Western elementary schools. From a geologic perspective, Europe IS a continent on the Eurasia plate. There is no reason to continue to enforce European exceptionalism, the other pages can be changed as well, but we need to start somewhere. What map do you have that doesn't have Australia on it's own plate? A case could be made that Eurasia could be subdivided into Eurasia, Arabia, and India, but Australia is on the Australian plate last I checked. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 06:46, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Are you seriously asking for sources saying Europe is a continent? The sources provided themselves note it is the default framework, hence their pushing back against it. The Australia plate covers more than what is usually considered the continent of Australia, and less than what is often referred to as the continent of Oceania. CMD (talk) 07:31, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm asking for sources that advocate for including Europe as a continent OVER the other models, or state why it isn't an artifact of Eurocentric worldviews. The lede explicitly says Europe IS a continent with a note that mentions the "English speaking world" I have sources that discuss why that model is problematic, sources supporting other models, and have proposed alternative wording that still allows mention that Europe is included in some models as a continent. Specifically, we don't need to endorse any framework, as continent is not a clearly defined term using it in the lede isn't particularly useful. The geologic Australian plate covers what is considered to be Australia from a geologic perspective, and Europe doesn't have a unique plate whose boundaries can be disputed at all. We have several land masses that are more or less on a single continental plate, several land masses on their own continental plate that are lumped in with another (largely because we didn't know those plates were there until recently), and Europe as an honorary inclusion because European geographers believed "Europe is the center of the intellectual, cultural, scientific, industrial, and commercial world. In fact the higher civilization of the world, outside eastern and southeastern Asia, is European, or slightly modified European; and nearly all modern advancement in the Orient is due to European influence." GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:31, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Support Although I don't think you can remove Europe's continental status anytime soon, I do support your proposal to use "major geographical region" instead of the ill-defined "continent" as the head noun for Europe.
However, I reckon that consistency should be maintained across all similar articles in Wikipedia. Hence, we should also change the head noun for Asia, Eurasia, Africa, North America, South America, and Antarctica (would become an archipelago if the Antarctic ice sheet is removed) to "major geographical region". As a discrete landmass completely surrounded by the ocean, mainland Australia is the only geographical entity on Earth which undisputedly meets the strict definition of "continent". ~2025-40137-61 (talk) 05:01, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
I agree we should move away from the term continent on the other land masses as well. In terms of definition of continent, the model I personally endorse requires a landmass to have a discrete tectonic plate. By this definition, the Caribbean would be a continent, while Europe wouldn't be. India, usually called a "sub-continent" has a much better claim then Europe to being a continent. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:38, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
A word means what people use it to mean; dictionary definitions support calling Europe a continent because it's one of those landmasses that are designated as continents; and reliable sources by and large identify Europe as a continent. It isn't in Wikipedia's purview to side-step all of these and make up its own models or its own rules for what words should mean or which items are properly described by a particular term. Calling the Caribbean a continent would be an flagrant example of Wikipedia divorcing itself from reliable sources on which everything in this project is, as a matter of policy, supposed to be exclusively based. It isn't a viable proposition. Any objection you have to the way in which the word is used in outside sources is an argument should be taken up with them, not here. Wikipedia isn't a forum for righting great wrongs. Largoplazo (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment In geography, everything is poorly defined. Just like continent and island, the definition of peninsula is arbitrary. Europe is technically a peninsula, the same can said of Southern Africa, Eastern Siberia, the Southern Cone of South America, and Alaska etc. However, these areas are not classified as peninsulas by the mainstream geographical societies around the world. Why? Maybe because they are too big. Hence, they are considered part of their respective continental mainlands instead. How big does an area has to be before it is not allowed to be classified as a peninsula? I don't know. There probably isn't an exact figure for that.
I would really like to see the International Geographical Union to clarify these geographical definitions and set an international standard for everyone to follow. Otherwise, people from different countries will always argue on the Internet about this and that because they all think what they learned at school is right. ~2025-40137-61 (talk) 03:22, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
...what we need is just another standardization by a self-referential authority Sira Aspera (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
Area of Europe is slightly larger than the real figure
I just want to point out that all three widely-quoted figures on the Internet (10.16 million sq. km, 10.18 million sq. km, and 10.53 million sq. km) are larger than the real area of Europe. I have carefully added the areas of all European countries and territories, including those small areas part of transcontinental countries, the final figure I got is 10,076,100 sq. km.
I noticed that the figure used by the Encyclopædia Britannica, which states that the area of Europe is approx. 10 million sq. km, is actually the most "accurate area figure" published by a reliable source on the Internet. I encourage everyone to start using this figure instead of the other three figures which probably added a small portion of Asia as part of Europe. ~2025-40137-61 (talk) 02:43, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
I tend to agree that the estimate of Britannica is sensible as it gives a robust number without going into details. If we want to go for the details we would likely end up with rounding errors, and we should consider exactly which islands and borders we agree upon, and in addition continuous changes in size due to sea level rising, land reclamation (and have to rely of measurement from the same year to control those variance), and even the difference between high and low tide (there may be a general agreement how to deal with that but again that should be the same in all countries). So I would indeed opt for a rough estimate here (PS you own addition is also most likely problematic for all the reasons above). Arnoutf (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
Comment: I was writing my below comment before this was posted. Agree with it, obviously. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:28, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
There are issues with calculating the "real size" of any geographic feature. This is due to the Coastline paradox, which makes it so the length of boundaries is reliant on how precise the unit of measurement is. As calculating the area is dependent on the length of the perimeter, the result is conflicting values. This is a problem with the physical geography, however with Europe, there are differing human geography definitions of what actually is in Europe. For example, some definitions will fractionally include parts of some countries, while others will be inclusive of the entire countries area. On Wikipedia, we do not have an agreed upon source for our geographic definitions, and therefore we will not have consistent values even between various pages. Europe as an entity separate from Asia on the Eurasian plate is more of an idea then a physical reality (noted above). The only solution here, without going further to improve the manual of style, is to cite one or two common values and then note what I've stated here. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:24, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2026
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change:
It spread from the Balkans along the valleys of the Danube and the Rhine (Linear Pottery culture), and along the Mediterranean coast (Cardial culture).
To:
It spread from the Balkans along the valleys of the Danube (Vinča culture) and the Rhine (Linear Pottery culture), and along the Mediterranean coast (Cardial culture).
From what I can tell, the existing link to Linear Pottery culture covers both the Danube and Rhine in that sentence. GearsDatapack (talk) 14:24, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. Day Creature (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2026
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change the link for Monaco under the "Capital" column in the main table (List of states and territories) so that it links to Monaco City instead of the country article.
Change the link for San Marino under the "Capital" column in the same table so that it links to City of San Marino instead of the country article. Giannis keramidas (talk) 12:45, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
not sure about San Marino but Monaco should not be changed. Monaco City is just a ward (neighbourhood) in the city state of Monaco (Population <1000). while the name is misleading it is just as much not the capital of the principality as the city of London (population around 15,000) is not the capital of the UK. Arnoutf (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
level-2 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale..svg){kind=small}
The redirect ევროპა has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 23 § ევროპა until a consensus is reached. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 12:38, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Comment: I opened up a Proposal at the Village pump addressing this. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
.svg)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. Day Creature (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
Already done City of San Marino is already linked from the table of capital cities. Per the comment above, it doesn't make sense to link Monaco City. {{GearsDatapack|talk|contribs}} 14:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)